Implementing ProblemSolvingResponse to Intervention: Critical Issues for Administrators

1
Implementing Problem-Solving/Response to
InterventionCritical Issues for Administrators

• Illinois Administrators Academy
• Decatur, IL
• August 4, 2008
• Dr. George M. Batsche
• Professor and Co-Director, Florida Statewide
  Problem-Solving/RtI Project
• University of South Florida
• batsche_at_tempest.coedu.usf.edu

2
How Do We Do RtI?

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

3
Resources

• www.nasdse.org
• Implementation Blueprints
• Primer on RtI
• Research Evidence
• www.fcrr.org
• www.rtinetwork.org

4
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

5
Components of the Organizational Delivery System

• Academic and Behavior Instruction
• Learning Supports
• Leadership

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
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

9
Response to Intervention

• Basic Assumptions

10
Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Basic
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

11
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
• Time is our ally and our enemy
• Early intervention and Prevention
• 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

12
Components of the ModelStandard Procedures

• All intervention and eligibility decisions are
  based on the assumption that the core
  instruction--academic and behavior--is effective.
• A single problem-solving process exists and the
  implementation steps and skills are standardized.
• Criteria exist for different types of RtI
• Criteria and procedures exist for eligibility
• Procedures exist to support intervention
  integrity and to document the dosage of
  intervention provided
• Intervention decisions are base on the type of
  RtI
• A cadre of interventions exist that the entire
  school is knowledgeable about

13
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
14
Intervention Framework
Academic
Behavior

• Intensive Interventions
• A few
• Supplemental Interventions
• Some
• Core/Universal Interventions
• All

15
How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment
Protocol
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 1
16
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

17
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

18
Initial Steps
19
Initial Steps

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

20
Initial Steps

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

21
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

22
Initial Steps

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

23
Personnel Critical to Successful Implementation

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

24
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

25
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

26
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

27
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

28
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

29
Role of Parent

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

30
Student Involvement

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

31
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

32
The Process of Systems Change

• Until, and unless, Consensus (understanding the
  need and trusting in the support) is reached no
  support will exist to establish the
  Infrastructure. Until, and unless, the
  Infrastructure is in place Implementation will
  not take place.
• A fatal flaw is to attempt Implementation without
  Consensus and Infrastructure
• Leadership must come both from the Principal and
  from the educators in the building.

33
Building Consensus

• Beliefs
• Understanding the Need
• Skills and/or Support

34
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.

35
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

36
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

37
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

38
Consensus DevelopmentData

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

39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
ImplementationInfrastructure
43
InfrastructureCritical Issues

• Policies and Procedures
• The Model
• Steps in the Model
• Decision Rules
• Decision Rules and Impact on Intervention
  Development
• Expectation for Tier Functions/Integration
• Data Collection and Interpretation
• Intervention Development
• Intervention Integrity and Documentation

44
InfrastructurePolicies and Procedures

• Clearly delineate the components of the model
• Triangle
• 4-Step Model
• Identify steps/skills required for each component
• Decision Rules

45
Cascade of Interventions

• Entire staff understands triangle and the
  available interventions at each Tier.
• Supplemental and intensive interventions are in
  addition to core instruction.
• A student intervention plan is a single document
  that is integrated across the tiers.
• Different tiers ensure that outcomes in Tier 1
  are improved
• Tier 1 progress monitoring data are used for
  effectiveness determination for all Tiers

46
(No Transcript)
47
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?

48
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

49
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

50
Data-Driven InfrastructureEstablishing a
Building Baseline

• Identify current progress monitoring assessment
  practices
• Determine if they meet needs/criteria
• Strengthen with additional methods, if necessary
• Identify how data are used, organized and
  interpreted currently
• Determine how to use technology to support

51
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

52
Tier Functions/Integration

• How the Tiers work
• Time aggregation
• Tier integration

53
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.

54
Integrating the Tiers

• Tier 1 (Core) instruction present at all three
  levels
• Purpose of Tier 2 is to improve success in Tier 1
• Purpose of Tier 3 is to improve success in Tier 2
• Is there a single intervention plan made up of
  different Tier services?

55
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

56
Intervention Development

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

57
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

58
Tiers or Levels

• Tier One- Examining Universal Interventions
• Questions
• How is this student doing compared to other
  students? GAP analysis
• What percent of other students are achieving
  district benchmarks? Effectiveness of instruction
• Hypotheses
• Ho Has this student been exposed to an
  effective learning environment?
• Ho Has this student had access to an effective
  learning environment?

59
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

60
Tiers or Levels

• Tier Two- Examining Supplemental Interventions
• Hypotheses
• Ho Student requires additional time for direct
  instruction
• Ho Focus of the curriculum must narrow
• Assessment
• DIBELS, CBM, district assessments
• Interventions
• Increase AET (90-120-180)
• e.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan
• Narrow focus to fewer, barrier skills
• District Supplemental Curriculum

61
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

62
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?

63
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

64
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

65
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

66
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

67
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

68
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

69
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

70
(No Transcript)
71
ImplementationCritical Components
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
Positive Response to Intervention
Expected Performance
Performance
Observed Performance
Fall
Winter
Spring
82
Questionable Response to Intervention
Expected Performance
Performance
Observed Performance
Fall
Winter
Spring
83
Poor Response to Intervention
Expected Performance
Performance
Observed Performance
Fall
Winter
Spring
84
Evidence-Based

• Nationally Evidenced
• Select to increase probability of success
• Locally Validated
• Local outcome data used to evaluate degree to
  which interventions worked
• Local outcome data trumps national evidence.

85
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?

86
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.

87
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.

88
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)

89
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
90
Tier 1 Data Example
91
(No Transcript)
92
(No Transcript)
93
Referral Analysis

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

94
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

95
Tier 2 Decision-MakingSmall Group

• 11 Students
• High Risk Initial Sounds Fluency
• Additional 30 Minutes Direct Instruction
• Wilsons Fundations
• Fluency

96
(No Transcript)
97
(No Transcript)
98
II
99
Elsie

• Second grade student
• End of School Year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 62 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF not great, not
  terrible

100
(No Transcript)
101
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF 62 wcpm, end of second grade benchmark for
  at risk is 70 wcpm (see bottom of box)
• Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie
  scores around the 12th percentile or -
• Elsies teacher reports that she struggles with
  multisyllabic words and that she makes many
  decoding errors when she reads
• Is this student at risk?

Continue Tier 1 Instruction
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
102
Decision Model at Tier 2- Supplemental
Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction will be
  provided to Elsie
• She will participate in two different
  supplemental groups, one focused on Decoding
  (Phonics for Reading Archer) and one focused on
  fluency building (Read Naturally Imholt)
• She will participate in small group instruction
  3x per week, 30 minutes each and she will also
  continue with her core instruction
• Supplemental instruction implemented by certified
  teachers in her school (2 different teachers)
• Progress monitoring about every 2 weeks

103
(No Transcript)
104
Data-Based Determination of Expectations Elsie

• Benchmark Level 90 WCPM
• Current Level 47 WCPM
• Difference to June Benchmark (Gap) 34 WCPM
• Time to Benchmark 41 Weeks
• Rate of Growth Required
• 34/41 .83 WCPM for Elsie
• NOT VERY AMBITIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• What would happen if we moved the target to the
  middle of the some risk box?

105
(No Transcript)
106
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

107
Questionable RtI
108
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.

109
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

110
(No Transcript)
111
Good RtI
112
By the Spring of Third Grade

• Elsies reading accuracy had improved
  significantly. Her average correct hovers
  around 95 percent.
• She still struggles with multisyllabic words
• Normatively, at periodic and annual review time,
  she is now performing at about the 19th
  percentile compared to peers from Heartland AEA.
  She is catching up!
• Elsie is not a student with a disability

113
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF on track for 100 wcpm, end of third grade
  benchmark for some risk is 110 wcpm (see top of
  box)
• Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie
  scores around the 19th percentile or -
• Is this student at risk?
• Still a bit of risk, maintain Tier II instruction
  for another benchmark period, if progress
  continues, move to tier 1

Continue Monitoring or Move Back to Tier 1
Elsie
No
Yes
Maintain Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
114
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

115
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.2.32 words/week
116
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
117
Tier 3 Decisions

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

118
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

119
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.95 words/week
120
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
121

• Behavioral
• Case
• Examples

122
II