ProblemSolvingResponse to Intervention RtI: Closing the Achievement Gap for ALL Students

1
Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention (RtI)
Closing the Achievement Gap for ALL Students

• New Wisconsin Promise Conference
• Pre-Conference Workshop
• January 12, 2009
• Dr. George M. Batsche
• Professor and Co-Director, Florida Statewide
  Problem-Solving/RtI Project
• School Psychology Program
• University of South Florida

2
National Resources to Support District and School
Implementation

• www.nasdse.org
• Building and District Implementation Blueprints
• Current research (evidence-based practices) that
  supports use of RtI
• www.rtinetwork.org
• Blueprints to support implementation
• Monthly RtI Talks
• Virtual visits to schools implementing RtI
• Webinars
• Progress Monitoring Tools to Assess Level of
  Implementation
• www.floridarti.usf.edu

3
The Vision

• 95 of students at proficient level
• Students possess social and emotional behaviors
  that support active learning
• A unified system of educational services
• One ED
• Student Support Services perceived as a necessary
  component for successful schooling

4
The Outcomes

• Maximum effect of core instruction for all
  students
• Targeted instruction and interventions for
  at-risk learners
• Significant improvements in pro-social behaviors
• Reduction in over-representation of diverse
  student groups in low academic performance,
  special education, suspension/expulsion, and
  alternative education.
• Overall improvement in achievement rates
• Maximize efficiency and return on investment
• AYP

5

• The Model

6
Response to Intervention

• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality
  instruction/intervention matched to student needs
  and (2) using learning rate over time and level
  of performance to (3) make important educational
  decisions.
• (Batsche, et al., 2005)
• Problem-solving is the process that is used to
  develop effective instruction/interventions.

7
Problem Solving Process
8
Three-Tiered Model of School Supports the
Problem-solving Process
ACADEMIC SYSTEMS Tier 3 Comprehensive
Intensive Students who need individualized
interventions. Tier 2 Strategic
Interventions Students who need more support in
addition to the core curriculum. Tier 1 Core
Curriculum All students, including students who
require curricular enhancements for acceleration.
BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS Tier 3 Intensive
Interventions Students who need individualized
intervention. Tier 2 Targeted Group
Interventions Students who need more support in
addition to school-wide positive behavior
program. Tier 1 Universal Interventions All
students in all settings.
9
Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Key
Issues

• Effective Core Instruction is the basis for this
  model.
• The model cannot fix core instruction issues
  through student removal
• Academic Engaged Time (AET) is the treatment
  dosage for this model
• Cannot do more in same time frame
• The unit of analysis is the school building,
  not the district
• Role of the building principal is critical to the
  success of the model

10
Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Key
Issues

• Supplemental instruction is best delivered
  through standard protocols of intervention to
  groups of students with common needs
• Data drive decisions- Rate is the key
• Severity vs Intensity
• Time is our ally and our enemy
• Early intervention
• Its all about the rate of student progress in the
  amount of time remaining
• Data collection WITHOUT intervention integrity is
  useless
• Staff, resources and time must match the demand

11
Problem-Solving/RtIResource Management

• Public Education Resource Deployment
• Support staff cannot resource more than 20 of
  the students
• Service vs Effectiveness--BIG ISSUE

Academic
Behavior
12
How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment
Protocol
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 1
13

• Status of RtI Implementation at the National
  Level
• Where Are You?

14
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

15
Key Findings

• 32 of districts expect full implementation by
  2010.
• 47 of districts have a defined RtI process53
  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

16
Key Findings

• 71 of districts report that they are using RtI
  for ALL students. 29 report that they are using
  it primarily to identify 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.

17
Key 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 special
  education students

18
Key Findings

• 84 of districts report implementation for
  reading, 53 for math and 44 for behavior.
• 96 of districts report that RtI has not been the
  focus of any legal proceedings.

19
How Do We Do RtI?

• Organized by a District PLAN
• Driven by Professional Development
• Supported by Coaching and Technical Assistance
• Informed by DATA

20
Response to Intervention

• Implementation

21
Effective Schools

• 30 or more of students at risk but who were at
  grade level at the end of the year.
• Characteristics
• Strong Leadership
• Positive Belief and Teacher Dedication
• Data Utilization and Analysis
• Effective Scheduling
• Professional Development
• Scientifically-Based Intervention Programs
• Parent Involvement

22
How Do We Know If This is a General Education
Initiative?

• Priority of superintendent and school board
• District Leadership Team
• Strategic Plan
• Focus is on effectiveness of Tier 1 for
  disaggregated groups
• Unit of Analysis is the BUILDING

23
How Do We Know If This is a General Education
Initiative?

• Principal Led
• Regular data analysis
• Data Days
• Team focuses in improving impact of core
  instruction
• Prevention and Early Intervention
• Screening and early intervention with
  Kindergarten students

24
Parent Involvement

• Meaningful and effective involvement is critical
• Parents must understand that
• RtI is relevant and beneficial to all students,
  regardless of placement
• RtI seeks to find out what specific instruction
  and interventions work best for their child
• RtI is not a categorical system that students
  must progress through laterally to become
  eligible for special education
• RtI does not override other rights under IDEA

25
Change Model
Consensus
Infrastructure
Implementation
26
Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI

• Consensus
• Belief is shared
• Vision is agreed upon
• Implementation requirements understood
• Infrastructure Development
• Problem-Solving Process
• Data System
• Policies/Procedures
• Training
• Tier I and II intervention systems
• E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan
• Technology support
• Decision-making criteria established
• Implementation

27
Consensus

• Making the shift to a new paradigm, like RtI,
  does not simply involve accepting a new set of
  skills. It also involves giving up certain
  beliefs in favor of others.

Ken Howell
28
Building Consensus

• Knowledge
• Beliefs
• Understanding the Need- DATA
• Skills and/or Support

29
Contextual Issues Affecting The Problem-Solving
Process in General and Special Education

• IDEA Re-Authorization
• Focus on academic outcomes
• General education as baseline metric
• Labeling as a last resort
• Increasing general education options
• Pooling building-based resources
• Flexible funding patterns
• RtI Introduced as option for LD eligibility
• ESEA Legislation-No Child Left Behind
• National Emphasis on Reading
• Evidence-based Interventions

30
New Regulations LD

• The child does not achieve adequately for the
• childs age or to meet State-approved grade-level
  standards
• in one or more of the following areas, when
  provided with
• learning experiences and instruction appropriate
  for the
• childs age or State-approved gradelevel
  standards
• The child does not make sufficient progress to
• meet age or State-approved grade-level standards
  in one or
• more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1)
  of this
• section when using a process based on the childs
  response
• to scientific, research-based intervention

31
New Regulations LD

• 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 childs parents.

32
New Regulations LD

• If the child has participated in a process that
• assesses the childs response to scientific,
  research-based
• intervention-
• (i) The instructional strategies used and the
• student-centered data collected and
• (ii) The documentation that the childs parents
  were
• notified about--
• (A) The States 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 childs rate of
  Learning AND the relationship between student
  behavior and academic performance.

33
What Does the USDOE Say?

• The Department does not believe that an
  assessment of psychological or cognitive
  processing should be required in determining
  whether a child has an SLD. There is no current
  evidence that such assessments are necessary or
  sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many
  cases, these assessments have not been used to
  make appropriate intervention decisions. (IDEIA,
  2004, p. 46651)

34
Why Problem-Solving ?BIG IDEAS

• AYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of
  attention to student progress, not student labels
• Building principals and superintendents want to
  know if students are achieving benchmarks,
  regardless of the students type
• Accurate placements do not guarantee that
  students will be exposed to interventions that
  maximize their rate of progress
• Effective interventions result from good
  problem-solving, rather than good testing
• Progress monitoring is done best with authentic
  assessment that is sensitive to small changes in
  student academic and social behavior

35
Big Ideas (cond)

• Interventions must be evidence based
  (IDEA/NCLB)
• Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure
  of problem severity
• Program eligibility (initial and continued)
  decisions are best made based on RtI
• Staff training and support (e.g., coaching)
  improve intervention skills
• Tiered implementation improves service
  efficiency

36
Implications

• Tier 1 Decision Making
• Ensure that the core curriculum is effective
• What does effective mean?
• 80 of students achieving benchmarks
• Disaggregated data
• Race, SES, LEP
• Who determines effective?
• Principal, Teacher, Data Person

37
Implications

• Poor/lack of instruction must be ruled out
• Curricular access blocked by any of the following
  must be addressed
• Attendance
• Health
• Mobility
• Sufficient exposure to and focus on the
  curriculum must occur
• Frequent, repeated assessment must be conducted

38
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
• Complete comprehensive evaluation

39
ConsensusEssential Beliefs

• No child should be left behind
• It is OK to provide differential service across
  students
• Academic Engaged Time must be considered first
• Student performance is influenced most by the
  quality of the interventions we deliver and how
  well we deliver them- not preconceived notions
  about child characteristics
• Decisions are best made with data
• Our expectations for student performance should
  be dependent on a students response to
  intervention, not on the basis of a score that
  predicts what they are capable of doing.

40
Consensus DevelopmentData

• Are you happy with your data?
• Building/Grade Level Student Outcomes
• Disaggregated
• AYP

41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44

• Knowledge and Skill Requirements

45
Personnel Critical to Successful Implementation

• District-Level Leaders
• Building Leaders
• Facilitator
• Teachers/Student Services
• Parents
• Students

46
PSM/RtI ContentAll Personnel

• Understanding of
• National, state, district policies regarding RtI
• Link between NCLB, IDEA 04, AYP and RtI
• Beliefs, knowledge and skills that support
  implementation of RtI
• Steps in the PSM, multilevel RtI model, and how
  eligibility is determined using RtI
• Fundamental utility of using progress monitoring

47
Role of District Leaders

• Give permission for model
• Provide a vision for outcome-based service
  delivery
• Reinforce effective practices
• Expect accountability
• Provide tangible support for effort
• Training
• Coaching
• Technology
• Policies

48
District Leaders Content Knowledge

• Understanding of
• Professional development delivery model that best
  supports implementation
• Staff and budget requirements to integrate
  general and special education services for the
  implementation of RtI
• Relationship between implementation and
  expectations for improved student performance
• Barriers that will occur and that must be
  addressed during implementation
• Use of, and support for, technology necessary to
  ensure efficient and effective implementation
• Essential stages of change and variables
  necessary for the smooth transition to the use of
  PSM and RtI

49
Role of the Principal

• Sets vision for problem-solving process
• Supports development of expectations
• Responsible for allocation of resources
• Facilitates priority setting
• Ensures follow-up
• Supports program evaluation
• Monitors staff support/climate

50
The PrincipalContent Knowledge

• Understanding of
• Need for universal, supplemental and intensive
  instructional strategies and interventions
• Components of a successful PDP
• Need for and skills in data-based decision-making
  and the need to share outcome data frequently
• Need to publicly recognize the relationship
  between staff efforts and student outcomes
• Need to involve and inform parents of the
  essential elements of RtI and their role in the
  process

51
Role of the Facilitator

• Ensures pre-meeting preparation
• Reviews steps in process and desired outcomes
• Facilitates movement through steps
• Facilitates consensus building
• Sets follow-up schedule/communication
• Creates evaluation criteria/protocol
• Ensures parent involvement

52
Role of Participants

• Review Request for Assistance forms prior to
  meeting
• Complete individual problem-solving
• Attitude of consensus building
• Understand data
• Research interventions for problem area

53
The ParticipantsContent Knowledge

• An understanding of
• The relationship between RtI and student
  achievement
• Need to increase the range of empirically
  validated instructional practices in the general
  education classroom
• Uses of the problem-solving method
• Technology and other supports available and
  necessary to implement RtI
• Administrative and leadership support necessary
  to maximize the implementation of RtI
• Need to provide practical models and examples
  with sufficient student outcome data
• Need for demonstration and guided practice
  opportunities

54
Student Services StaffContent Knowledge

• An understanding of
• The different models for evaluating student
  performance differences and their impact on the
  development of instructional and assessment
  practices
• Evaluation strategies to assess instructional
  quality in general and special education
  classrooms and programs
• CBM and related continuous progress monitoring
  technologies to relate individual student
  performance to instructional quality data
• Need for and models of social support and the
  role of support staff in the provision of that
  support for school staff
• Specific training in coaching, mentoring and data
  management strategies

55
Role of Parent

• Review Request for Assistance form prior to
  meeting
• Complete individual problem solving
• Prioritize concerns
• Attitude of consensus building

56
Student Involvement

• Increases motivation of student
• Reduces teacher load
• Teaches self-responsibility

57

• Development Infrastructure

58
District Responsibilities

• Based on self-assessment results, develop an RtI
  implementation plan organized around building
  consensus, infrastructure, and implementation.
  Plans should also address
• How current resources will be used to implement
  RtI and identify additional resources needed
• How stakeholders will be educated
• How stakeholders will be involved

59
Key Points

• Unit of implementation is the building level.
• Implementation process takes 4-6 years.
• Implementation progress must be monitored
• Must be guided by data indicating implementation
  level and integrity
• Must be supported by professional development and
  technical assistance
• Drive by a strategic plan
• It is a journey, not a sprint

60
Implementation Model

• District-based leadership team (DBLT)
• School-based leadership team (SBLT)
• School-based coach
• Process Technical Assistance
• Interpretation and Use of Data
• Evaluation Data

61
Initial Steps

• District Leadership Team
• Curriculum/General Education
• MIS
• Student Services
• Special Education
• Reading, Math, Behavior
• Building Leadership Teams
• Mirrors District Leadership Team

62
Initial Steps

• Develop Implementation Plan
• 4 Years
• Consensus, Infrastructure, Implementation
• Begin with Tier 1 Issues
• Data
• Effectiveness
• Evaluate Effectiveness of Supplemental Services
• 70 Criterion

63
District Plans
64
School Plans
65
Initial Steps

• Develop Implementation Plan
• Infrastructure
• Data
• Decision Rules
• Technology
• Cascade of Interventions (Integrated)
• Intervention Support
• Identify Professional Role and Development Needs
• Data Coach and Skills
• Problem-Solving Process
• Intervention Development and Support
• Parent Involvement

66
Initial Steps

• Develop Implementation Plan
• Implementation
• Entire District
• Vertical Programming
• Pilot Schools
• Evaluation Plan

67

• The Infrastructure

68
Problem Solving Process
69
Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

• PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• Identify replacement behavior
• Data- current level of performance
• Data- benchmark level(s)
• Data- peer performance
• Data- GAP analysis
• PROBLEM ANALYSIS
• Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)
• Develop predictions/assessment
• INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT
• Develop interventions in those areas for
  which data are available and hypotheses
  verified
• Proximal/Distal
• Implementation support
• Response to Intervention (RtI)
• Frequently collected data
• Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

70
Data For Each Tier - Where Do They Come From?

• Tier 1 Universal Screening, accountability
  assessments, grades, classroom assessments,
  referral patterns, discipline referrals
• Tier 2 Universal Screening - Group Level
  Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress
  monitoring, large-scale assessment data and
  classroom assessment
• Tier 3 Universal Screenings, Individual
  Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress
  monitoring, formative assessment, other informal
  assessments

71
Data Coach

• Gathers and Organizes Tier 1 and Tier 2 Data
• Supports staff for small group and individual
  data
• Provides coaching for data interpretation
• Facilitates regular data meetings for building
  and grade levels

72
Decision RulesWhat Constitutes Good RtI?
73
Decision Rules

• Response to Intervention Rules
• Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

74
Decision Rules What is a Good Response to
Intervention?

• Positive Response
• Gap is closing
• Can extrapolate point at which target student(s)
  will come in range of target--even if this is
  long range
• Level of risk lowers over time
• Questionable Response
• Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably,
  but gap is still widening
• Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
• Poor Response
• Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

75
Positive Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Performance
Observed Trajectory
Time
76
Decision Rules What is a Questionable
Response to Intervention?

• Positive Response
• Gap is closing
• Can extrapolate point at which target student(s)
  will come in range of target--even if this is
  long range
• Questionable Response
• Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably,
  but gap is still widening
• Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
• Level of risk remains the same over time
• Poor Response
• Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

77
Questionable Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Performance
Observed Trajectory
Time
78
Decision Rules What is a Poor Response to
Intervention?

• Positive Response
• Gap is closing
• Can extrapolate point at which target student(s)
  will come in range of target--even if this is
  long range
• Questionable Response
• Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably,
  but gap is still widening
• Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
• Poor Response
• Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.
• Level of risk worsens over time

79
Poor Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Performance
Observed Trajectory
Time
80
Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Performance
Observed Trajectory
Time
81
Evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention

• Is the intervention evidence-based?
• How intense is the intervention?
• What can we expect the intervention to do?
• Was the intervention implemented as planned?
• How effective is this intervention with students
  from similar backgrounds?

82
Decision Rules Linking RtI to Intervention
Decisions

• Positive
• Continue intervention with current goal
• Continue intervention with goal increased
• Fade intervention to determine if student(s) have
  acquired functional independence.

83
Decision Rules Linking RtI to Intervention
Decisions

• Questionable
• Was intervention implemented as intended?
• If no - employ strategies to increase
  implementation integrity
• If yes -
• 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.

84
Decision Rules Linking RtI to Intervention
Decisions

• Poor
• Was intervention implemented as intended?
• If no - employ strategies in increase
  implementation integrity
• If yes -
• Is intervention aligned with the verified
  hypothesis? (Intervention Design)
• Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem
  Analysis)
• Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem
  Identification)

85
Intervention Integrity Decisions
Evidence based intervention linked to verified
hypothesis planned
Evidence based intervention implemented
Student Outcomes (SO) Assessed
Treatment Integrity (TI) Assessed
Continue Intervention
SO TI
Data-based Decisions
Implement strategies to promote treatment
integrity
-SO -TI
-SO TI
Modify/change Intervention
From Lisa Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008 NASP Convention
86
Tier I Problem-Solving Data and Skills Needed
Tier I - Assessment Discipline Data
(ODR) Benchmark Assessment School Climate
Surveys Universal Screening FCAT Universal
Screening District-Wide Assessments
Tier I - Core Interventions School-wide
Discipline Positive Behavior Supports Whole-class
Interventions Core Instruction
10 - 15
80 - 90
87
(No Transcript)
88
H
89
Tier 1 Data Example
90
www.swis.org
91
www.swis.org
92
Referral Analysis

• 42 Noncompliance
• 30 Off-Task/Inattention
• 12 Physical/Verbal Aggression
• 6 Relational Aggression
• 10 Bullying

93
Building-Level Behavior Data

• Building Referred
• Male 50 80
• White 72 54
• Hispanic 12 20
• African American 15 24
• Other 1 2
• Low SES 25 50

94
Interventions Tier 1

• Group students based on skill data
• Differentiate instruction based on grouping
• Organize students based on skill performance
• Higher performing, more students,
• Lower performing, fewer students
• Same amount of time, different use of that time
• Breadth of skill focus might vary

95
Tier II Problem-Solving Data and Skills Needed
1 - 5
Tier II - Targeted Interventions Targeted Group
Interventions Increased Intensity Narrow
Focus Linked to Tier I
Tier II - Assessment Behavioral
Observations Intervention Data Group
Diagnostic Universal Screening Progress Monitoring
10-15
80 - 90
Tier I - Core Interventions
Tier I Assessment
10 - 15
80 - 90
96
Data Infrastructure Using Existing Data to
Predict Intervention Needs

• Previous referral history predicts future
  referral history
• How do we interpret teacher referrals?
• Previous intervention history predicts future
  intervention history
• How do we use this information to establish an
  infrastructure for change?

97
Data-Driven InfrastructureEstablishing a
Building Baseline

• Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years
• Identifies problems teachers feel they do not
  have the skills/support to handle
• Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the
  staff, the resources currently in place and the
  history of what constitutes a referral in that
  building
• Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years
• Identifies focus of Professional Development
  Activities AND potential Tier II and III
  interventions
• Present data to staff. Reinforces Need concept

98
Data-Driven InfrastructureEstablishing a
Building Baseline

• Assess current Supplemental Interventions
• Identify all students receiving supplemental
  interventions
• For those interventions, identify
• Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction,
  etc)
• Duration (minutes/week)
• Provider
• Aggregate
• Identifies instructional support types in
  building
• This constitutes Tier II and III intervention
  needs

99
Tier Functions/Integration

• How the Tiers work
• Time aggregation
• Tier integration

100
How the Tiers Work

• Goal Student is successful with Tier 1 level of
  support-academic or behavioral
• Greater the tier, greater support and severity
• Increase level of support (Tier level) until you
  identify an intervention that results in a
  positive response to intervention
• Continue until student strengthens response
  significantly
• Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level)
• Determine the relationship between sustained
  growth and sustained support.

101
Integrating the Tiers

• 5th grade student reading at the 2nd grade level
• Tier 3
• Direct Instruction, Targeted, Narrow Focus (e.g.,
  phonemic awareness, phonics, some fluency)
• Tier 2
• Fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, pre-teach for
  Tier 1
• Tier 1
• Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted
  decoding
• Use core materials for content
• Progress monitor both instructional level and
  grade placement level skills

102
Intervention Development

• Tiers 1 and 2
• Critical Components
• Evidence-based

103
Intervention Development

• Criteria for Appropriate and Effective
  Interventions
• Evidence-based
• Type of Problem
• Population
• Setting
• Levels of Support
• Focused on most important needs
• Group interventions have priority
• Interventions MUST be linked to Tier 1 focus,
  materials, performance criteria

104
Characteristics of Tier 2 Interventions

• Available in general education settings
• Opportunity to increase exposure (academic
  engaged time) to curriculum
• Opportunity to narrow focus of the curriculum
• Sufficient time for interventions to have an
  effect (10-30 weeks)
• Often are standardized supplemental curriculum
  protocols

105
Interventions Tier 2

• First resource is TIME (AET)
• HOW much more time is needed?
• Second resource is curriculum
• WHAT does the student need?
• Third resource is personnel
• WHO or WHERE will it be provided?

106
Tier 2 Getting TIME

• Free time--does not require additional
  personnel
• Staggering instruction
• Differentiating instruction
• Cross grade instruction
• Skill-based instruction
• Standard Protocol Grouping
• Reduced range of standard curriculum
• After-School
• Home-Based

107
Tier 2 Curriculum

• Standard protocol approach
• Focus on essential skills
• Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of core
  instruction
• Linked directly to core instruction materials and
  benchmarks
• Criterion for effectiveness is 70 of students
  receiving Tier 2 will reach benchmarks

108
Tier 2 Personnel

• EVERYONE in the building is a potential resource
• Re-conceptualize who does what
• Personnel deployed AFTER needs are identified
• WHERE matters less and less
• REMEMBER, student performance matters more than
  labels, locations and staff needs.
• A school cannot deliver intensive services to
  more than 7 of the population

109
Intervention Support

• Intervention plans should be developed based on
  student need and skills of staff
• All intervention plans should have intervention
  support
• Principals should ensure that intervention plans
  have intervention support
• Teachers should not be expected to implement
  plans for which there is no support

110
Critical Components of Intervention Support

• Support for Intervention Integrity
• Documentation of Intervention Implementation
• Intervention and Eligibility decisions and
  outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model
  without these two critical components

111
Intervention Support

• Pre-meeting
• Review data
• Review steps to intervention
• Determine logistics
• First 2 weeks
• 2-3 meetings/week
• Review data
• Review steps to intervention
• Revise, if necessary

112
Intervention Support

• Second Two Weeks
• Meet twice each week
• Following weeks
• Meet at least weekly
• Review data
• Review steps
• Discuss Revisions
• Approaching benchmark
• Review data
• Schedule for intervention fading
• Review data

113
(No Transcript)
114
(No Transcript)
115
(No Transcript)
116
Tier 3 Decisions

• GAP?
• Rate??
• Independent Functioning?
• Fade Intervention to Supplemental Level
• Evaluate Rate

117
Tier 3

• Individual and Very Small Group
• Individual Diagnostic Procedures
• Intensive Interventions
• Goal is to determine interventions that close the
  GAP
• Pre-requisite for consideration for any special
  education program

118
Data-Based Determination of Expectations Elsie

• Benchmark Level 100 WCPM
• Current Level 47 WCPM
• Difference to June Benchmark (Gap) 53 WCPM
• Time to Benchmark 41 Weeks
• Rate of Growth Required
• 53/41 1.29 WCPM for Elsie
• Peer Group Rate about 1.1 WCPM growth (at
  benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for some risk benchmark)
• REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

119
Questionable RtI
120
Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction - Revision

• The intervention appeared to be working. What
  the teachers thought was needed was increased
  time in supplemental instruction.
• They worked together and found a way to give
  Elsie 30 minutes of supplemental instruction, on
  phonics and fluency, 5x per week.

121
Data-Based Determination of Expectations Elsie

• Benchmark Level 100 WCPM
• Current Level 56 WCPM
• Difference to June Benchmark (Gap) 44 WCPM
• Time to Benchmark 27 Weeks
• Rate of Growth Required
• 44/27 1.62 WCPM for Elsie
• Peer Group Rate 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark)
  1.2 WCMP (for some risk benchmark)
• REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

122
(No Transcript)
123
Good RtI
124
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.2.32 words/week
125
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.95 words/week
126

• Behavioral
• Case
• Examples

127
II