PROBLEM-SOLVING AND RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

1
PROBLEM-SOLVING AND RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE
School Association for Special Education in
DuPage County Presents

• October 2, 2007
• David Prasse
• Loyola University Chicago
• dprasse_at_luc.edu

2
Acknowledgements

• Jeff Grimes - Iowa
• Dave Tilly - Iowa
• George Batsche - Florida
• Joe Kovaleski - Pennsylvania
• Ed Shapiro Pennsylvania
• Dan Reschly - Tennessee

3
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

4
Getting Results- Research Outcomes Based

• Scientifically-based research 110 times
• Policy Decisions- based on research
• Evidenced-based teacher education
• Evidenced-based medicine data over authority
  (gives authority to the data)

5
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

6
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

7
Is It All About Reading? Yes!

• 52 of IDEA go to LD Programs
• 70 /- 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 reading
• Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast majority
  of special education activities

8
Reading Achievement

• Reading First scientifically-based research
• Provide high quality reading instruction K-3
• Early Reading First 5 key components
• Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency
• Vocabulary Comprehension

9
PRESIDENTS COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION FINDINGS

• CURRENT SYSTEM PROCESS ABOVE RESULTS
• CURRENT SYSTEM WAIT TO FAIL MODEL
• DUAL SYSTEM- GENERAL AND SPECIAL
• INADEQUATE PARENT OPTIONS AND RECOURSE
• CULTURE OF COMPLIANCE

10
PRESIDENTS 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.

11
PRESIDENTS COMMISSION SPECIAL EDUCATION
RECOMMENDATIONS

• FOCUS ON RESULTS NOT ON PROCESS
• EMBRACE A MODEL OF PREVENTION NOT FAILURE
• CONSIDER CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AS GENERAL
  EDUCATON CHILDREN FIRST

12
Summary Problems with the Discrepancy Approach

• Need to wait until discrepant to deliver SDI
• Doesnt link with intervention
• False positives (high IQ average achievement)
• False negatives (the slow learner myth)

13
Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special
Education
Excedrin Headache 1 for Special Education!
14
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)
• Its the nature of the program more than the
  label that makes the difference.

15
EHA 1975 Function and Purpose

• Find/identify children with disabilities
• Diagnosis/label synonymous with program
• Provide procedural protections
• It worked well children were found.
• Referred, tested, placed record numbers.

16
IDEA 97

• over 20 years of research and experience has
  demonstrated that education of children with
  disabilities can be made more effective by. (A)
  having high expectations for such children and
  ensuring their access in the general education
  curriculum to the maximum extent possible (F)
  providing incentives for whole-school approaches
  and pre-referral interventions to reduce the need
  to label children as disabled in order to address
  their learning needs and (G) focusing resources
  on teaching and learning while reducing paperwork
  and requirements that do not assist in improving
  educational needs (Section 601 (C) (5), IDEA).

17
IDEA 1997

• Emphasis on student outcomes.
• From procedures to student performance.
• Stop focusing on testing and labeling
• Start emphasizing effective intervention.

18
IDEA 1997Eligibility Determination

• existing evaluation data (including that
  provided by the parents)
• current classroom-based assessments and
  observations, and
• teacher and related service providers
  observation.
• , on the basis on that review, and input from
  the childs parents, identify what additional
  data, if any, are needed to determine special
  education eligibility needs Sec. 614 (c) (1) (A)
  (B). (emphasis added).

19
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, 2005
• Regulations August, 2006

20
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

21
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.

22
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 childs 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).

23
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 childs parents.

24
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 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

25
State Regulations Sec 226.130

• No later than Jan 1, 2009 each district shall
  develop a plan for the transition to the use of a
  process that determines how the child responds to
  scientific, research-based interventions as part
  of the evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR
  300.304. Each districts plan shall identify the
  resources the district will devote to this
  purpose and include an outline of the types of
  State-assistance the district expects to need,
  with particular reference to the professional
  development necessary for its affected staff
  members to implement this process.

26
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

27
Problem Solving Process
28
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

29
Problem-SolvingWhat It Is and Is Not

• What it is.
• A process designed to maximize student
  achievement
• A method focused on outcomes
• A method to ensure accountability and
  intervention evaluation
• It is all about student progress, regardless of
  where or who that student is
• What it is not
• A way to avoid special education placements
• A less expensive way of schooling

30
What Are the Barriers?

• Its a different way of doing business for some.
• It requires an expanded set of skills.
• Interventions are integrated, not done by team
  members or special educators only
• Requires frequent data collection and
  analysis--different culture
• Focus is on HOW and WHAT student is doing, not
  WHERE the student is going

31
What Are the Benefits?

• Enhanced Student Performance
• Accountability
• Greater staff involvement
• Greater parent involvement
• Greater student involvement

32
Discrepancy/Child Study vs Problem Solving

• Focus on interventions (not test scores)
• Low and high ability students respond equally
  well to phonemic awareness and phonics
  interventions.
• Assessment linked to developing and monitoring
  the effectiveness of interventions (not to
  diagnoses or categories)
• Balance between needs/resources (not strictly to
  eligibility)
• Change process (not a fix)
• Student outcome-based, not placement-based (What
  students DO is important, not what students are
  CALLLED)

33
The VISION To Provide Effective Interventions
to Meet the Needs of ALL Students Through Early
and Scientifically Based Interventions Through
Careful Systems Planning
STUDENTS
34
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.

35
Response to InterventionHow Well Are We Doing?

• A systematic and data-based method for
  determining the degree to which a student has
  responded to intervention.
• Determined solely through analyzing data
• Begins with using data to IDENTIFY the problem
• Services should intensify for a student as the
  student response to intervention is below
  expectations.
• It IS NOT Problem-Solving

36
Response to InterventionHow Well Are We Doing?

• What do we do when a student has been placed in
  special education but the students rate of
  progress has not changed significantly?
• This has significant implications for special
  education re-evaluations under the RtI model.

37
Use of RtI in the Student Eligibility Process
So, how does the eligibility process look
different using the RtI approach vs. traditional
practices?
38
Traditional vs RtI

• RtI
• Discrepancy
• Child/Benchmarks
• Rule Out
• Ineffective instruction/access
• Supplemental instruction
• Intensive instruction
• Rule In
• Identification of effective interventions
• Extraordinary supports for progress
• Data
• Curriculum-based

• Traditional
• Discrepancy
• IQ/Achievement
• Rule Out
• Sociocultural
• SES
• Sensory
• Developmental
• Rule In
• Psychological Processes
• Data
• Norm referenced

39
Re-Evaluations

• Traditional
• Discrepancy continues to exist
• Limited progress toward benchmarks
• Supports critical

• RtI
• Gap is closing
• If response is poor, should we keep the student
  in the program?
• If response is good, can we transition to a Tier
  3,2 or 1?

40
Problem Solving and RtI

• I really just want to be able to use RtI without
  all of that problem-solving stuff--can I do that?

41
Using Response to Instruction to Determine
Eligibility for Special Education Three Tiers

• 1. Screening and Primary Intervention
• 2. Assessing Response to Instruction During
  Through Standard Protocol Interventions,
  and/or Team-based Problem Solving.
• 3. Appraising the Extent of Academic Deficiency
  and Evaluating the Need for Specially Designed
  Instruction.

42
Tier 1 School-wide Screening and Intervention

• Grades K-12
• Identification of high risk students
• Targeted intervention to high risk students using
  research-based procedures (group)
• Ongoing monitoring of performance (quarterly)
• Primary example Early assessment of marker
  variables (DIBELS). High school PBIS program.

43
TIER 1 Benchmark/Schoolwide Benchmark/Core
Reading Programs 1. Rigby Literacy (Harcourt
Rigby Education, 2000) 2. Trophies (Harcourt
School Publishers, 2003) 3. The Nations Choice
(Houghton Mifflin, 2003) 4. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill
Reading (2003) 5. Open Court (SRA/McGraw-Hill,
2002) 6. Reading Mastery Plus (SRA/ McGraw-Hill,
2002) 7. Scott Foresman Reading (2004) 8. Success
For All (1998-2003) 9. Wright Group Literacy
(2002) Reviewed by Oregon Reading
First Comprehensive Addressed all 5 areas and
included at least grades K-3
44
Tier 1 Data Analysis Teams

• Teams working together to
• Access critical data on all students performance
  related to achievement of standards
• Analyze data and find which students have which
  gaps in attainments
• Set measurable goals to close the gap
• Design and implement instructional strategies

45
Teams Working Together

• Like teachers grade level or department level
• Use skills of other team members in collaborative
  consultation (e.g., problem identification,
  brainstorming)
• Need a structure (time, place, etc.)

46
Accessing Critical Data

• Two forms of data group test and district
  performance tests/tasks
• Need a process for gathering data
• Need someone to convert data into
  teacher-friendly summary documents
• Need to train teachers on how to read summary
  documents

47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
Kindergarten Phoneme Segmentation End of 2001
-2002 Academic Year
Approximately 80 Schools
81 N 3739
14 N 659
4 N 192
50
Universal Screening can Identify School Wide
Reading Deficits
Mastery
Instructional
At Risk
Reading data- 1st grade
51
After Grade Wide Intervention--No Systemic Problem
First Grade
52
Standard-Based Approaches

• Illinois AIMSweb Standards Tied to ISAT and
  Minnesota State
• Oregon DIBELS Standards
• With a Standards Based Approach, Use Linkages to
  High Stakes Tests
• The desired outcome is to have the student meet
  standards on High Stakes Tests.

53
Illinois AIMSweb Standards (Cut Scores for ISAT)
54
Standards-Based Approaches and Universal Screening
Red Highly Unlikely to Pass the State
TestGreen Highly Like to PassYellow
Uncertain to Pass
55
Conceptualizing Tier 2

• Standard Protocol
• Problem solving teaming

56
A Standard Protocol Intervention

• is scientifically based.
• has a high probability of producing change for
  large numbers of students.
• is designed to be used in a standard manner
  across students.
• is usually delivered in small groups.
• is often scripted or very structured.
• can be orchestrated by a problem-solving team.

57
Tier 2 Assessing Response to Instruction during
Team-based Problem Solving

• Some students will not meet benchmarks even with
  help at Tier 1 or through standard-protocol
  interventions.
• Someone is monitoring results of data-analysis
  teams to identify students for school-based
  problem solving.
• Use problem solving not refer/test/place.

58
TIER 2 Strategic Strategic/Supplemental Reading
Programs Early (Soar to) Success (Houghton
Mifflin) Read Well (Sopris West) Reading Mastery
(SRA) Early Reading Intervention (Scott
Foresman) Great Leaps (Diamuid, Inc.) REWARDS
(Sopris West) Ladders to Literacy (Brookes) Read
Naturally Peer Assisted Learning Strategies
(PALS)
59
Description Lack of instruction is not
evident. This student has responded poorly to
the intervention strategy. After an initial
adaptation period of five days, the teacher
implemented the strategy as designed for the
duration of the intervention period. In spite of
this assistance, the student's rate of learning
throughout the period has been slow. This
response-to-instruction pattern indicates that
the student's lack of progress is more likely the
result of learning difficulties than a lack of
effective instruction. Specially designed
instruction is likely needed for this student to
acquire and retain new information.
60
Description Student responds well to effective
instruction. This student responded well to the
intervention strategy. After an initial
adaptation period of six days, the teacher
implemented the strategy as designed for the
duration of the intervention period. With this
assistance, the student's rate of learning
throughout the period was steady and in a
positive direction. This response-to-instruction
pattern indicates that the student's difficulties
are more likely the result of a lack of effective
instruction than a disability. This student does
not display a high degree of need for special
education because he can demonstrate acquisition
and retention with adapted instruction in the
regular classroom.
61
Description Response to instruction cannot be
determined. This student has responded poorly
during the intervention strategy. However, in
spite of support, the intervention was not
implemented as planned throughout the
intervention period. Consequently, it cannot be
determined whether the student's lack of progress
are more likely the result of learning
difficulties or a lack of effective instruction.
Another period of support is needed to assist the
teacher to implement the strategy as designed in
order to make a conclusion about this issue.
62
Tier 3 Appraising the Extent of Academic
Deficiency and Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction.
63
TIER 3 INTENSIVE Reading Programs Corrective
Reading (SRA) Language! (Sopris West) Wilson
Reading System Reading Mastery Earobics
(phonics/phonemic awareness Cognitive
Concepts) Great Leaps/ Read Naturally
(Fluency) REWARDS (Fluency, Comp. and Vocab. in
Plus Program) Soar to Success (comp.)
64
Entitlement Decision

• Using Response-to-Intervention data for
  educational decision making

65
Entitlement for Special Education
Assessment and Progress Data From Problem Solving
Process
Educational Progress
Discrepancy
Instructional Needs
Convergence of Data from a Variety of
Sources (Grimes and Tilley, 2003)
66
Step 1 Appraising the students rate of learning

• Evaluating the students response to
  scientifically based instruction.
• What was the students progress during the
  intervention?

67
Conditions for Special Education Entitlement
Progress

• Educational Progress - previous interventions
  have not sufficiently improve a students rate of
  learning and additional resources are needed to
  enhance student learning or the interventions
  that have sufficiently improved the students
  learning are too demanding to be implemented
  without special education resources (Grimes
  Tilly, 2003)

68
Assessing Progress (Grimes Tilly, 2003)
69
Conditions for Special Education Entitlement
Discrepancy

• Discrepancy - given equal or enhanced
  opportunities, the students current level of
  performance is significantly lower than typical
  peers or identified standards (Grimes Tilly,
  2003)

70
Discrepancy (Grimes Tilly, 2003)
Above the range of expected performance
Standard of expected performance
Within the range of expected performance
Below the range of expected performance
71
Verifying Academic Deficiency Using CBM

• Development of local norms
• Determining discrepancy from local norms
• 2.0 X criterion

72
2.0X calculation

• Divide norm group mean by students score
• Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
• Example 100 wpm / 50 wpm 2.0X

73
Cornwall-Lebanon SD ElementaryOral Reading
Fluency Norms
Grade 1F 1W 1S 2F 2S 3F 3S 4F 4S 5F 5S
WPM 18 42 69 76 113 79 107 107 125 129 146
EPM 10 6 4 4 2 5 3 3 3 2 2
74
Step 3 Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction

• Deviations in materials
• Deviations in planning
• Deviations in personnel

75
Conditions for Special Education Entitlement
Instructional Needs

• Instructional Needs - instructional needs have
  been identified that are beyond what can be
  provided in general education. This is evident
  when curriculum, instruction or environmental
  conditions need to be very different for the
  student as compared to the needs of other
  students in the general education environment.
  (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

76
Decision Making
Yes

• Is the students rate of progress given equal
  opportunity significantly less than the rate of
  typical peers or an expected rate of skill
  acquisition or are the interventions that
  sufficiently improved the students rate of
  learning too demanding to be implemented with
  integrity without special education resources?
• Does the students performance remain
  significantly different than that of peers or
  identified standard?
• Does the student continue to need curriculum and
  instruction that is significantly different than
  what is provided in the general education
  classroom?

Yes
Yes
77
Entitlement Decision (Grimes and Tilley, 2003)

A. Educational Progress
B. Discrepancy
C. Instructional Needs
Entitlement Decision



78
So What Is Special Education-Really?

• Characteristics AND Need (IDEA 04)
• Instructional and Related Services Necessary to
  Profit from Education
• Supplements General Education
• Note Does not supplant-particularly LD
• Unified system of Education
• Funds (really??) Instructional and Related
  Services When Those Reach a Certain Level of
  Intensity
• What is Special? Intensity and Focus

79
Academic Case Examples

• Thanks to Joe Kovaleski and Ed Shapiro for the
  case examples
• PA State-wide RtI Initiative

80
(No Transcript)
81
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF 50 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk 44
  wcpm
• Comprehension skills are judged as at levels
  equal to ORF by her teacher
• Is this student at risk?
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is Working

Continue Tier 1 Instruction
Lisa
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
82
Rita

• Second grade student
• Beginning of school year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF

83
(No Transcript)
84
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk 44
  wcpm
• Comprehension deficits in all 4 of 5 areas are
  noted
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working
• Is this student at risk?

Continue Tier 1 Instruction
Rita
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
Rita
85
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic
Interventions Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction (3-4
  students with similar skill levels)
• Standard protocol intervention
• 3x per week, 30 minutes each
• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)
• Implemented by 2 different available
  instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

86
Aimline 1.50 words/week
87
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention
Instruction

• ORF 34 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 1.85 words/week
• Gains above benchmark in 4 of 5 comprehension
  areas
• Student on target to attain benchmark
• Step 2 Is student responsive to intervention?

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 1
Rita
Move to Tier 3 Intensive Interventions
No
Yes
88
Steven

• Second grade student
• Beginning of school year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF

89
(No Transcript)
90
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk 44
  wcpm
• Comprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5
  areas
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working
• Is this student at risk?

Continue Tier 1 Instruction
Steven
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
Rita
91
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic
Interventions Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction in Ritas
  group (3-4 students with similar skill levels)
• Standard protocol implementation
• 3x per week, 30 minutes each
• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)
• Implemented by 2 different available
  instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

92
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.55 words/week
93
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention
Instruction

• Step 2 Is student responsive to intervention?
• ORF 24 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/week
• Below comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas
• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark
• Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 2?

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 1
Steven
Move to Tier 3 Intensive Interventions
No
Yes
94
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive
Interventions Instruction

• Supplemental, 13, pull-out instruction
• Individualized Problem-Solving, Targeted
  Instruction
• Specific decoding and analysis strategies
• Emphasis on comprehension strategies
• 5x per week, 30 minutes each
• Implemented by 2 different available
  instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every week

95
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.2.32 words/week
96
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention
Instruction

• Step 3 Is student responsive to intervention at
  Tier 3?
• ORF 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/week
• At or above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5
  areas
• Student on target to attain benchmark
• Step 3 Is student responsive to intervention?
• Move student back to Strategic intervention

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 2
Steven
Move to Sp Ed Eligibility Determination
No
Yes
97
Bart

• Second grade student
• Beginning of school year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF

98
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.95 words/week
99
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention
Instruction

• Step 3 Is student responsive to intervention at
  Tier 3?
• ORF 31 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 0.95 words/week
• Below comprehension benchmarks in all areas
• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 2
Bart
Move to Sp Ed Eligibility Determination
No
Yes
100

• Behavioral
• Case
• Examples

101

• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Grade Level Social Skill Training

Benchmark
75
60
55
50
35
Peer Group Target Student
Aim Line Trend Line
?
102
Benchmark
75
65
60
55
50
35
Peer Group Target Student
Aim Line Trend Line
?
103
Benchmark
75
65
60
55
50
35
Peer Group Target Student
Aim Line Trend Line
?
104
Tier 3 - Intensive

• Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)
• Home-School Notes
• Individual Self-Control Training

80
Benchmark
75
75
65
60
55
50
35
Peer Group Target Student
Aim Line Trend Line
?