Oakland Schools Math RTI Screening and Early Intervention … · 2015. 12. 7. · Oakland Schools:...

Oakland Schools Department of Special Education

Oakland Schools Math RTI Screening and Early Intervention Action Research Project Based on the Delta Math RTI State Project

Final Report June 2015

Oakland Schools Math RTI Project Team William Barley Lindson Feun James Randall Carrie Zielinski

Oakland Schools: Department of Special Education June/2015 Page 1

Oakland Schools Math RTI Screening and Early Intervention Action Research Project Based on the Delta Math RTI State Project

Introduction and Purpose Oakland Schools Special Education Department sponsored a 2-year Math RTI Project for Grades K through 3. The purpose of the project was to improve math achievement for all students by implementing a RTI for Math framework which provided the infrastructure and the tools for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the current math instructional program and identifies areas in need of instructional improvement. Within this framework all students in Grades 1-3 were screened on essential math standards and the big ideas of math content. Areas in need of improvement were identified and instructional adjustments were implemented across 3 Tiers of instruction depending on the frequency of occurrence and severity of the problems identified. Program Overview Oakland Schools Special Education Department supported 4 elementary school teams from 2 districts: Independence Elementary and Clarkston Elementary in Clarkston, and Simonds Elementary and Edmonson Elementary in Lamphere, in making a 2-year commitment to implementing the Delta Math RTI Program in grade levels K through 3.

Year 1 followed the process outlined below using a pencil and paper version of the Delta Math RTI Screening Assessments.

In Year 2 some schools utilized an online version of the Screening Assessments. Building Teams then had access to the automatic scoring and report menu that are available with the web-based system.

The Delta Math RTI program includes 4 essential components of RTI systems: 1. Universal math screening (based on Common Core Standards) in the Fall and Winter. 2. Grade level meetings occur post screening in the Fall and Winter to evaluate screening data

and prioritize interventions for at-risk students. Grade Level Meetings: cross grade-level teacher teams including current and previous

grade level teachers (K–1) (1–2) (2–3) problem-solving in a PLC format. The teams develop intervention plans and identify resources to implement targeted whole

class re-teaching or supplemental instruction for identified groups of students. Intervention Folders are constructed to hold these plans and to serve as a resource for

other teachers and future groups of students. 3. Interventions are focused on the standards that students are struggling to meet. 4. Progress monitoring of students in need of intervention (using assessments aligned with the

Delta Math Grade Level Screeners) is done at regular intervals to assure that interventions have been successful in helping students to meet essential standards.

Evaluation Questions Our evaluation of the Pilot Project utilized multiple data sources in an attempt to assess the efficacy of implementing a RTI framework for Math. Our analysis of the data focused on answering 4 questions the team considered critical in evaluating the RTI for Math process. 1. To what degree was the Delta Math RTI process implemented with fidelity? 2. How effective and efficient was the Delta Math screener in identifying students for the RTI

process in math? 3. How effective was the use of the Delta Math RTI process at improving math achievement?

(See page 20 for specific Common Core Standards assessed at each grade level.) 4. In what ways did the implementation of a Math RTI process and collection of Delta Math RTI

Screening Data shift classroom instructional practice in the delivery of math instruction?


Participating Districts Site selection began with the premise that we wanted buildings experienced in the RTI process in Reading. We also were looking for districts that had resources such as math coaches that were excited about embracing this work. We recruited 2 districts, Clarkston and Lamphere, which selected 2 elementary buildings each. For a complete description of the participating districts and schools see pages 13 to 15. Summary of Key Findings 1. A key principle of all RTI systems is the focus on early identification and intervention with the

purpose of preventing long-term academic problems. Identifying and addressing critical

instructional needs as early as possible is essential to this prevention effort. It is for this

reason that our Math RTI Pilot Project focused on implementing in grades K through 3.

2. Implementation of a RTI process for Math stimulated a much needed dialogue between

teachers, math consultants, and district leadership regarding math curriculum, instruction,

and student achievement in math. This ongoing dialogue was the first step toward changing

math instructional practice and improving math achievement in the participating districts.

Here are some examples of actions taken by the districts to improve Tier 1 math instruction:

a. Both districts began to research new textbooks and curriculum resources to better

support core instruction. In fact, both districts sent teams to participate in an OS Math

Department Initiative that provided a systematic process to evaluate new potential

math textbooks aligned with the new high standards of Common Core.

b. In response to early numeracy needs identified by the screening data, the Lamphere

Math Consultant implemented a new numeracy instructional resource, Number Talks,

with a group of early elementary teachers. Meanwhile, Clarkston District Leadership

initiated professional development focused on Number Sense with all of its K – 3

teachers during year 2 of the project.

c. Another area of need identified by the universal screening data was fractions

instruction. Lamphere district sent a team to an OS Summer Institute on Fractions the

summer following year 2 of the project.

3. Evaluation and improvement of Tier 1 instruction is an essential first step in improving math

achievement for all students. When large numbers of students (30% or more in the Delta

Math RTI model) are not proficient on specific pre-requisite skills, Tier 1 interventions (whole

class) are required. Of course, the Tier 1 intervention may be supplemented with Tier 2

interventions for more at-risk students requiring more time or intensive intervention. The

process of collecting universal screening data helped schools to identify Tier 1 (Core

Instruction) concerns needing to be addressed. Post data (progress monitoring) and year-

to-year comparison data provided a data-based feedback loop for staff to evaluate in

collaborative dialogues with their colleagues. These dialogues focused staff in answering

questions about math curriculum and instruction such as: “How are we doing with Core

Math instruction? Are our action plans effective in “closing the gap” and improving math

achievement deficits? Are we more effective at preparing students to meet grade level

standards than before?”

a. Pre-post data from all schools and grade levels showed significant improvement in

student achievement in areas of need identified by the screening data. For example,

Subtraction within 5 (beginning 1st grade), subtraction within 10 (beginning 2nd grade)


and subtraction within 20 (beginning 3rd grade) were identified as areas of need in all

buildings. The post-test data showed significant improvement in these skills following

a semester of Tier1 and Tier 2 interventions. The high percentages of students having

problems in these areas pointed to areas of math curriculum and instruction weakness

which were subsequently addressed vis a vis interventions, curriculum resource

reviews, and professional development leading to higher quality math instruction for all

students in Tier 1 (Core Instruction). As stated by John Van de Walle, “One way to

teach for equity, supported by extensive research, is guaranteeing that students have

a highly qualified teacher with strong knowledge of and experience teaching

mathematics.”

b. Our third grade case study data demonstrates that remediating deficits can be done

while continuing to work on grade level standards and objectives which lead to year-

to-year math achievement gains for all students. The year-to-year comparison data

from all schools from the Fall of 2013, showed 24 examples of grade level standards

on which 30% or more of students failed to make criteria, but when looking at the

readiness data for the 2014 school year this number was reduced to only 9 standards

on which 30% or more failed to meet criteria. Although additional improvement is still

needed, this data is a significant step forward in “closing the gap” and important first

step in the process of continuous math improvement for all students. (See pages 24 –

26 for complete discussion of the data.)

4. The Delta Math Screener is unlike other traditional math screening tools. The assessments

were developed specifically to align with the Common Core Math Standards at each grade

level that were considered to provide an essential foundation for continued success in math

at subsequent grade levels. The standards chosen are based on the work of Dr. William

McCallum, one of the lead writers of the CCSS math standards who developed a list of

"Required Fluencies in K-6" that he believes is necessary for all students to engage in the

mathematical practices that include problem solving.

5. Initially, leadership (including that of Oakland Schools) believed that RTI reading experience

would transfer directly into the new math initiative. In fact, it appeared that implementation of

RTI for Reading actually competed with RTI for Math in terms of competing for limited

access to infrastructure, resources, and time allocated to the different initiatives. It was

difficult for buildings to implement both reading and math initiatives in the limited time and

space allocated, particularly if attempting to implement with fidelity at all levels (Tiers 1, 2

and 3) of the system simultaneously.

6. A corollary to Finding #5 is the importance of allocating adequate time for Consensus and

Infrastructure Building during the pre-implementation and early implementation phases of

any RTI for Math initiative. It is essential that all staff participating in the project develop an

understanding of the principles of RTI and the purpose or compelling need for implementing

an RTI framework in their district. Building the required infrastructure for RTI, for example,

setting aside time for teachers to talk to grade level and cross-grade level colleagues about

math curriculum, instruction and student achievement in math, is an essential component for

successful implementation of any RTI project. It is the Building Leadership Team’s

responsibility to assure that this takes place.

7. An important missing piece in the implementation picture was the absence of cross grade

level meetings. In the Delta model the data discussed in cross grade level meetings provide

essential feedback to the teachers as to whether their exiting students have met standards


essential for success at the next level. These meetings provide an opportunity for teachers

to identify gaps in their curriculum and instruction which may then be corrected in order to

prevent future failure. It is also important that a Math Coach or Math Instructional Specialist

be part of these discussions. Because the Delta Math RTI model does not call for universal

screening of kindergarten students, the K -1 cross grade level meetings provide the only

opportunity for kindergarten teachers to participate in a data-based discussion of math

curriculum and instruction. Thus, our Pilot districts missed an important opportunity to

implement needed preventative and corrective actions adjusting kindergarten curriculum

and instruction.

8. Strong evidence from research validates the efficacy of the use of universal screening

assessments. In addition, our own study documents the predictive validity of the Delta Math

Screening Total Score and the Addition Fluency (within 20) subtest score at predicting

general math outcomes on MEAP and NWEA. Despite this evidence, participating staff

(including administrators) remain concerned and perhaps confused about the purpose of

screening assessments and the specific role they play as part of a comprehensive math

assessment regime, which includes: outcome assessments, diagnostic assessments and

other formative assessments, working in concert with universal screening and progress

monitoring assessments. The importance of having universal screening and progress

monitoring assessments in place that provide regular feedback to teachers enabling them to

plan and evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction cannot be overstated. Mandated

annual outcome assessments like MEAP cannot provide the immediate and frequent

feedback teachers need to make these data-based instructional decisions and evaluate the

results. It should be reassuring that the screening and progress monitoring tools employed

in our Pilot study also correlate highly with the state mandated math assessment and the

NWEA Math assessment which is becoming more widely used. (See pages 17 and 18.)

9. Building on items 7 and 8, it is particularly important to note that in the context of our Pilot

study, the fluency assessments related to addition and subtraction within 5 (Kindergarten

Standard), within 10 (Grade 1 Standard) and within 20 (Grade 2 Standard) were often

misinterpreted as representing procedural deficits in addition and subtraction. It is the

opinion of this team that this is a misreading of the data. Poor performance on these very

simple math operations represents instead significant deficits in Number Sense rather than

procedural deficits. The data first identified such deficits in students exiting kindergarten,

and the deficits persist throughout the elementary grades. These deficits in Number Sense

appear to be caused by a lack of instructional focus and regular allocation of academic time

to routines which incorporate activities involving the composing and decomposing of

numbers within 5, 10 and 20, and the use of tools that would facilitate the internalization of

number sense such as regular use of the number line, the 5-frame, 10-frame, and double

10-frame that provide a concrete or visual representation of the persistent patterns that exist

in working in the base 10 system.

The incorporation of the regular use of multiple representations of math content (working

from the concrete to the visual to the symbolic) into Tier 1 math instruction is a desired

change in practice for Core math instruction. The importance of developing a solid

foundation in Number Sense and its relationship to later math achievement is a conclusion

shared both by this Team and the research on math instruction and achievement.


Conclusions The desired outcome of implementing any RTI initiative is to engage staff in a process that leads to data-based teacher reflection, improved Core instruction in Tier 1, and improved achievement for all students. This is how primary prevention works. The most common misconception about RTI is that we screen all students to identify who needs and receives intervention and potentially who is eligible for Title One and Special Education support. At the heart of the RTI model is a sense of shared responsibility to evaluate the quality of instruction being delivered; engage in a process of systemic continuous improvement, and begin a shift in instructional practices that leads to improved teaching and, consequently, improved learning for all students. RTI is a long term systemic change initiative usually requiring 3 to 5 years to achieve fidelity of implementation. In our Delta Math RTI Pilot Project our participating districts and schools began a process of implementing RTI for Math that we studied for a period of 1.5 to 2 years. This was not near long enough to achieve high levels of fidelity of implementation of the RTI framework. During that time period, however, all 4 schools saw evidence of improved math achievement, and we would expect that improvement to continue as districts sustained their efforts and worked toward full implementation of RTI for Math with fidelity. Another important principle of RTI is the focus on early identification and prevention of academic problems. This is the reason that our RTI for Math Pilot Project had a K – 3 focus. Universal screening data collected during the Pilot clearly showed that deficits in number sense can be identified as early as Kindergarten, and these difficulties often persisted into grades 1, 2, 3 and beyond unless specifically addressed. The absence of purposeful Kindergarten Teacher participation in our systemic math improvement initiative was an important missing piece in prevention efforts. It is the recommendation of the Oakland Schools Team that in the future Kindergarten Teachers be systematically included in cross-grade level meetings with their Grade 1 colleagues, and that universal screening of kindergarten students on essential Common Core Math standards (such as the Delta Math Grade 1 Readiness Standards) begin during the second semester of kindergarten. The importance of analyzing and improving Tier 1 Core Math instruction at the kindergarten level cannot be overstated. The foundations of conceptual understanding of numbers and base 10, the foundations of which are established in kindergarten, affect all future math learnings as students move through subsequent grade levels of math curriculum. Finally, teacher reflection, collaboration, and instructional problem-solving for math, (based on data from standards-based common assessments) are the essential ingredients in a continuous improvement process for math. It is this data-driven collaboration which enables teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses in math curriculum, instruction, and student learning which must be addressed. Data-based instructional problem-solving is also the key to identifying the need for strategic professional development for teachers which will improve their math content and pedagogical knowledge and lead to improved math achievement for all students. Such teacher collaboration is dependent upon the systematic use of a set of standards-based, common math assessments that will drive and focus the discussion. That being said, we leave you with this question, “If not Delta Math, then what set of standards-based common math assessments will be used to drive this continuous improvement process?”


RtI and the Problem of Low Math Achievement

The National Assessment for Educational Progress (2011) reported U. S. students’ national mathematics assessment results has steadily increased over the last two decades. However, as one examines the overall data, seventy-three percent of eighth grade students still performed at or below a basic proficiency level (National Center for Education Statistics, [NAEP], 2011). Despite current research and educators’ efforts, NAEP data indicated that the majority of U.S. students continued to struggle learning mathematics.

This lack of mathematical understanding and low student achievement has had long term implications for society and for public education at large (Geary, 2011). Low student achievement has caused student failure in higher level math classes and adult life in general (Geary, Bailey, & Hoard, 2009; Jordan, Kaplan, Ramineni, & Locuniak, 2009). Students’ future employability, their rates of promotions and annual incomes have been negatively impacted (Geary, 2011). Furthermore, approximately 5% to 10% of children were diagnosed with some form of mathematics difficulty by the time they completed high school (Bryant, 2005; Geary et al., 2009). Public concerns over the effectiveness of mathematics instruction and students’ achievement in mathematics have amplified due to persistently low math scores (especially for student subpopulations), economic and technological globalizations, and U.S. businesses outsourcing their work to other countries (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001).

Historical Perspective of RTI

Beginning in the early 1960’s, federal initiatives attempted to target consistently low performing students and special education in significant ways. In 1963, the U.S. government issued federal law PL 88 -164. This law provided monetary assistance for researchers to study mental retardation to better understand learning disabilities experienced by American students. Soon thereafter, the 1975 federal authorization for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 stated that the identification process for learning-disabled students had to be done through a discrepancy model before additional educational services were provided (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Lembke, Hampton, & Beyers, 2012; Riccomini & Smith, 2011). This model specified that to identify a student with a learning disability, teachers and psychologists needed to document at least a two year discrepancy between a student’s intellectual quotient and his/her academic achievement (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Thus, a struggling student in mathematics waited until fifth grade, experiencing multiple years of failure, before the student’s name was brought before a referral team (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). In essence, the student had to “wait to fail” before any additional educational support or interventions were provided (Bradley, Danielson & Doolittle, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012; Gresham & Little, 2012). Several drawbacks resulted from this discrepancy model. Riccomini and Smith (2011) indicated one major problem included students over or under identified, creating false positives or negatives. There was a lack of consistency across states on how students were identified for special education services. A third major issue had to do with ineffective prevention efforts. Students’ learning difficulties went untreated far too long, and over time, exacerbated their learning difficulties. A fourth problem involved classroom teachers. Most often, they lacked professional understanding to base their instructional decisions and services while working with identified students (Riccomini & Smith, 2011; Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007). To address these issues, in 1997, members of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities authored a formal document to the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. The authors expressed grave concerns regarding the issues at hand. This letter strongly influenced the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA signed by President Bush and IDEA was amended. The longstanding federal requirement of a two-year discrepancy for identifying students with learning disabilities was removed.


The amended IDEA (2004) law focused on improving student learning through a variety of means. One major change was educators were able to identify struggling students early on without waiting for student failure. The law also recommended use of assessment practices and clearer implications for educational programming (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Further amendments included more flexibility in referral processes, encouraged increased parental involvement and the need for evidenced-based instructional materials and practices in the classroom. It also reduced the amount of paperwork required by teachers, states and local school districts. Most importantly, however, the amended law permitted states to discontinue the use of IQ discrepancy and put into place alternative options for identifying students with learning disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012; Riccomini & Smith, 2011). As part of the early identification process, the reauthorized IDEA 2004 law specifically “encourages the use of a child’s response to evidence-based instruction as a formal part of the disability identification process” (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012, p. 263). Such a system required systematic monitoring of student progress with sound instructional decisions based upon formative data. This new and untested process was labeled “responsiveness to intervention” or RTI. In accordance with the IDEA reauthorization, schools began to capitalize on these proposed benefits by implementing RTI processes for the reasons specified: early identification, intervention and prevention of students’ academic failure and for reducing the amount of students needing special education and/or tertiary programming (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007).

Implementation of an RTI System of Support

Early intervention in mathematics has been documented to have strong implications leading to later student success in core subjects (Bryant et al., 2011). As a result, leaders of the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM) argued that intervention and preventative measures were necessary and essential elements in all K-12 mathematics programs (NCSM, 2013). A NSCM position document described RTI as a “…systematic, data based method for identifying, defining, and resolving students’ academic difficulties using collaborative, school-wide, problem-solving approaches” (NSCM, 2013, p. 1). Kupzyk, Daly, Ilho and Young, (2012) described RTI “as a fluid and flexible continuum of services to maximize all students’ progress” (p. 219). At this time, the U.S. Department of Education has not recommended nor endorsed any specific RTI model (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007); however, many schools have readily adopted RTI frameworks (Lembke, Hampton, & Beyers, 2012). Furthermore, research has not identified a single RTI model to be effective in all situations and in all cases (O’Connor & Freeman, 2012); and, no two applications of an RTI system have been identical (Munro, 2008). However, “the effects obtained under any RTI model depend on the quality with which implementation occurs” (RTI Action Network); and, the implementation process for staff within a school has begun with leadership.

Leadership has been one of the most important factors for the success of any implementation effort (Fullan, 2010). For successful implementation of an RTI model, it was imperative a leader attended to the research regarding effective instructional practices in mathematics (NCSM, 2014) and also to the literature on how to successfully implement change (Kotter, 2012). Furthermore, when it came down to implementation planning for RTI, the focus had to be on the adults in the room. These were the staff who worked together changing their belief systems about what it meant to effectively teach and learn mathematics. They also had to develop new instructional practices for doing so. Thus, a leader needed to reflectively consider and understand that changing people’s behavior and thought processes about teaching and learning was one of the most challenging aspects of educational leadership (NCSM, 2014); and, resistance to change was likely to emerge (French & Bell, 1999, p. 271). Hence, “planning, guiding, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating” (NCSM, 2014) the implementation of RTI


were all critical aspects needing attention. Problem solving, conflict resolution, teamwork, and in effect, system’s change, involved all parties coming together for the purpose of student learning.

RTI in Mathematics Classrooms

Fuchs and Fuchs (2007) claimed there were two major goals for the implementation of RTI. The first goal was to identify students “at risk” for learning mathematics early on so they participated in preventative measures prior to the onset of grave deficits in understanding mathematical concepts. The second goal was to identify students who potentially had learning disabilities. These were students who did not respond positively to validated, standardized forms of mathematics instruction and differentiated interventions. (Preventative measures necessitated school staff providing additional individualized forms of instruction beyond the regular classroom.)

The research for successful implementation of RTI models for reading has helped schools and educators begin to consider elements foundational for RTI models in math. Riccomini and Witzel (2010) provided the following six tenets critical for successful RTI implementation in mathematics:

1. An established belief system declaring all students could be successful in learning mathematics when effective instruction existed and was continually examined.

2. At least three times per year (fall, winter and spring), a reliable universal screening tool was used to assess all students’ levels of proficiency and detect possible deficiencies. This supported early identification of struggling students and made early interventions and specialized instruction possible.

3. A systematic process for progress monitoring was instituted for supporting data-based decision making. This included gathered formative data used to inform the teacher about the impact classroom instruction had upon student learning.

4. Researched-based strategies and resources were used in core instruction and in academic interventions.

5. Tiers of instructional support existed and trained professionals supported students at each tier.

6. Ongoing program evaluation ensured the effectiveness of RTI implementation.

Like reading, assessment practices in mathematics have been integral throughout the instructional RTI process. The information collected and analyzed guided teachers in enhancing student learning. Anchored in important mathematical content, the screeners were based upon critical topics and applications detecting deep understandings of mathematics used in everyday applications. For example, universal screeners have been available for Pre-K to first grade that assessed early numeracy. For later elementary students, universal screeners have targeted computation skills, mathematical concepts and applications. For secondary students, estimation and algebraic concepts have been assessed through available screeners (Lembke, Hampton, & Beyers, 2012). A second assessment measure critical to the RTI process was the regular monitoring of student progress. This was done to assess the results of core mathematics instruction and/or Tier II and Tier III interventions (Lembke, Hampton & Beyers, 2012 p. 264). When thinking about individual tiers, effective Tier I mathematics instruction needed to focus on developing student understanding of critical and appropriate mathematical content aligned to the Common Core State Standards and/or district curriculum (Lembke, Hampton & Beyers, 2012). It needed to feature a strong and well-designed mathematics program that incorporated high quality, student-centered differentiated instruction with lessons and materials


supporting students in representing mathematical ideas in visual ways and in a variety of ways (Riccomini & Smith, 2011). These visual models provided temporary scaffolding as students attempted to make sense of abstract concepts. Sound classroom instruction provided students opportunities to practice new and recently acquired mathematical skills (Clarke et al., 2011) and included flexible groupings with heavy emphasis on verbalization and written forms of mathematical thinking and processes, peer interactions and peer tutoring (Clarke et al., 2011; Lembke, Hampton & Beyers, 2012).

The Big Ideas of Response to Intervention (RtI)

The National, Michigan and Oakland Schools Models

As articulated, RTI is a framework for implementing systems-level change that focuses on improving instruction and achievement results for both general education and special education programs and services. The National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) provides the following definition of RtI:

Response to intervention integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavioral problems. With RtI, schools use data to identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities. (National Center on Response to Intervention, April 2010, p. 2)

Figure 1

The relationship between four essential components of RtI: screening, progress monitoring, data-based decision-making and multi-level prevention systems.

The National Center on Response to Intervention (March 2010). Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the four essential components of RtI: screening, progress-monitoring, data-based decision making, and multi-level prevention systems (National Center on Response to Intervention, April 2010). Notice that data-based decision making is at the hub of this relationship.


The Michigan Department of Education (MDE, October 2010) similarly defines RtI as: “an integrated, multi-tiered system of instruction, assessment and intervention designed to meet the achievement and behavioral needs of all students.” The MDE’s essential components of the Michigan RtI Framework include:

1. Implementation of effective instruction for all children. 2. Intervening early. 3. Providing a multi-tiered model of instruction and intervention. 4. Utilizing a collaborative problem-solving model. 5. Assuring a research-based core curriculum. 6. Implementation of research-based scientifically validated interventions/instruction. 7. Monitoring student progress to inform instruction. 8. Using data to make instructional decisions. 9. Using assessments for three purposes: universal screening, diagnostic, and progress

monitoring. 10. Implementing with fidelity. 11. Engaging both parents and community.

The goal of RtI is to improve the learning outcomes for all students, and to reduce the risk of long-term negative learning outcomes for those identified as at-risk by providing early and appropriate intervention services. Data-based instructional decision making is the essence of good RtI practice. In RtI, a school-wide, multi-level prevention system is implemented in order to meet the needs of all learners. At least three levels (often referred to as Tiers) of instructional support with increasing levels of intensity are provided. Decisions regarding student movement between levels and instructional adjustments within levels are made based on the evaluation of screening and progress monitoring data. The three levels of support may be described as follows (see Figure 2):


Figure 2: Three Levels of Support within an RTI Framework

Level (Tier) One: Primary prevention via high quality (research-based) core instruction that meets the needs of most students. Universal screening for all students.

Level (Tier) Two: Secondary prevention via supplemental, evidence-based interventions of moderate intensity which address the learning challenges of most at-risk students and more frequent progress monitoring.

Level (Tier) Three: Tertiary prevention via intensive, evidence-based interventions that are both individualized and of increased intensity for students who show minimal response to secondary prevention. Frequent progress monitoring.

In RtI frameworks, there is a conceptual shift away from the belief that low achievement is due to within-student deficits, and toward the belief that most low achievement is the result of insufficient exposure to appropriate instruction matched to student needs. Successful RtI systems demonstrate increased achievement levels for all students.

Implementation of an RTI System of Support

The Delta Math RtI Program Model

The Delta Math RtI Program is a statewide project aimed at improving math achievement K-8. It is a collaborative initiative of Ottawa ISD (Lead by Math Consultant, Michael Klavon) and the Michigan Department of Education via the Michigan Integrated Math Initiative (MI)2, an IDEA grant program. The Delta Math RtI Program model is based on the theory and research on math instruction and intervention documented in the U.S. Department of Education’s IES Practice Guide: Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools. The lead author and Chair of the panel producing the Guide is Dr. Russell Gersten. The Delta Math RtI Program model operationalizes the recommendations set forth in the IES Practice Guide and incorporates them into a coherent K-8 Math RtI Program. The “Theory of Action” upon which both the Math Practice Guide and the Delta Math RtI Program are based states: “Students struggling with mathematics may benefit from early interventions aimed at improving their mathematics ability and ultimately preventing subsequent failure.” (Introduction, p. 4) The steps of the Delta Math RtI Program are implemented utilizing a 3-Tier framework. Tier 1 Screen all students to identify those at risk. Delta Math provides readiness screeners (for

grades 1 through pre-algebra) which may be used 2-3 times per year to identify each student’s readiness to learn current grade level content standards.

o The Delta Math Grade Level Readiness Screeners are very different than those screeners typically used in RtI programs. Instead of using a general math or reading screener as in most RtI programs, The content of the “Readiness Screeners” is based on 5, 6, or 7 required competencies from the previous grade level’s Common Core Standards that are viewed as essential prerequisites for successfully taking on the challenge of the current grade level math curriculum as embodied in the CCSS. The standards chosen to be assessed are based on the work of Dr. William McCallum, one of the lead writers of the CCSS math standards. Dr. McCallum


helped to develop a list of "Required Fluencies in K-6" that he believes is necessary for all students to engage in the mathematical practices that include problem solving.

Screening results are analyzed and discussed at Cross-Grade Level Team meetings (K-1, 1-2, 2-3 …) the aggregate data are examined to identify patterns of student performance by standard. For any standard on which 30% or more of students failed to meet criteria, problem-solving is done on a systems level (looking at grade level curriculum, scope, sequence, resources, instructional strategies utilized, time allocated, etc.). Interventions (re-teaching of the standard) are planned for Tier 1 (whole class, whole grade level). Corrective steps also need to be identified for the previous grade level math instruction to prevent similar gaps in math learning from recurring in the future.

This process is followed for each standard assessed at each grade level. Tiers 2 and 3 Delta Math identifies students for targeted Tier 2 interventions that are focused on whole

numbers, fractions, integers and algebra concepts as recommended in the IES Practice Guide. When less than 30% of students fail to pass a standard, targeted short-term intervention groups are planned by the Cross-Grade Level Team to provide the necessary supplemental instruction needed for students to master the essential concept or skill required in the standard.

In addition to the Grade Level Readiness Screeners, Delta Math has developed a set of Intervention Cycle tools for each standard at each grade level. These tools include an assessment review, lesson planning templates, standard-specific progress monitoring assessments, and Growth Charts for students to graph there progress in intervention. (Recommendations #7 and #8 from the IES Practice Guide)

Based on the level of need identified on the combined results of the screener and the review, students are sorted into either a “targeted practice group” or an “intervention group”. Intervention for each student continues only as long as needed. When students in the intervention group meet criteria on progress monitoring, they are moved to the practice group. When students meet criteria 3 consecutive times they are exited from intervention.

A similar process is followed for each standard assessed at each grade level. Students who fail to make progress and meet criteria after several sessions are problem-

solved by the team for possible more individualized or intensive support. (Tier 3)

Oakland Schools Delta Math RTI Pilot Project What was expected of participating Districts and Buildings? Each school identified a RTI Math Building Team consisting of the following:

1. Principal (mandatory) 2. District Math Consultant 3. Building Intervention Coach 4. Classroom Teacher Representative 5. Special Ed Representative

Building Teams attended a Delta Math Program overview session at Oakland Schools. Following the Overview Session the Building Teams were responsible for:

1. Sharing the Delta Math RTI Program information with the rest of their building staff. 2. Scheduling Universal Math Screening Assessment windows for Fall and Winter 3. Scheduling and facilitating Grade Level Team Meetings. 4. Monitoring the implementation of Intervention Groups 5. Evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of the Delta Math RTI Process by

participating in and/or completing the following: Onsite visits, observations and group interviews facilitated by Oakland

Schools Consultants Team Process Surveys


Teacher Process Surveys Schedules for Screening, Grade Level Meetings and Intervention Groups Date-based Action Plans from Grade Level Meetings Fidelity Checklists Evaluation of student data to assess progress toward meeting standards

6. In April of 2013 Building Teams attended a full-day training session preparing them for implementation of the web-based Delta Math RTI Assessment System.

What was Oakland Schools’ role? Oakland Schools assumed responsibility for the following:

• Scheduling and facilitating Team training sessions with Delta Math Staff. • Assisting, observing and monitoring the implementation of the Delta Math RTI process in

each participating building. • Provided an allowance per building for instructional resource materials to be used for

math instruction and intervention groups • Developed a Program Evaluation Paradigm and Tools to aid participating districts and

schools in evaluating the Fidelity of Implementation and Effectiveness of the Delta Math RTI Program

• Paid the $2.10 charge per student for the web-based assessments for year two. • Provided feedback to the district and school leadership teams on the findings of the

program evaluation process. Purpose of the Pilot Program Evaluation: Studying the effects of the systematic use of a math screening tool, specifically the Delta Math Readiness Screener, as a principal component of implementing a RTI process for math instruction in the four pilot schools. Assumptions: Schools understood RTI implementation based on prior experience implementing a similar model for Reading. There will be a buy in by staff. Schools had the resources to improve math instruction and were building on existing infrastructure. Limitations: The pilot was a descriptive study and no control groups were used. Although schools agreed on participating in the pilot, Math RTI was not the highest priority as indicated by time allotted to implement the Math RTI process and the allocation of resources. One principal retired and a math coach position was eliminated in one of the schools during the pilot. Grade level meetings to discuss RTI were canceled due to weather conditions and priorities of schools. The schools were in transition to the Common Core Standards. In the two districts it was clear that a well-defined math curriculum was not in place. Thus, teachers were left on their own to identify instructional priorities for math within their school and grade level. Resource allocations for math instruction and intervention have historically been secondary to that which is allocated for literacy instruction and intervention. Description of Participating Schools and School Districts The process of identifying and recruiting the four buildings for the Delta math pilot started with the premise that we wanted buildings already embracing the RTI process in Reading. We also were looking for districts that had resources such as math coaches or coordinators that were excited about embracing this work. We wanted two different districts and we wanted two buildings per district which, in turn, the districts selected. They saw our inquiry into piloting this RTI process as also meeting there needs to best serve all students in the area of mathematics. Below is information about the size and resources for each district. Clarkston has 7 elementary buildings and Lamphere has 4 elementary buildings.

District # of Students

# of Students

Revenue per Student

County Rank x/28

Revenue per Student

County Rank x/28


June 2012 June 2013 2012-2013 2012-2013 2013-2014 2012-2013

Clarkston 8,062 8,023 $10,096 17th $9,162 22nd

Lamphere 2,860 2,909 $10,864 9th $10,496 11th

Lamphere was our first district of choice since two building principals from their district had attended a week long institute on math at Oakland Schools. Several other districts were contacted but dropped out for various reasons before we engaged in conversation with Clarkston. They agreed this was an area that they wanted to explore. At the time of our Pilot study both districts were in the process of evaluating their math curriculum and studying possible curriculum resources that they might employ in the future. This process was ongoing throughout the 2 year duration of the Pilot and continued afterward. Background data on math achievement was gathered through MEAP scores from the three year period of 2011-2013. The Tables below shows how each building, their district and then the County and State performed on the 3rd grade MEAP Math Test.

Clarkston - District Scores for Third Grade MEAP Math

Year 2011 2012 2013

Proficient 51 56.6 57.6

Partially proficient 29 22.7 23.2

Not Proficient 20 20.8 19.2

Scores vary from year to year and each building’s scores sometimes fell below district averages. Except in one case all averages at the building levels were above state averages. This project was about above average districts, in terms of MEAP scores, trying to improve math achievement for all students.

Clarkston - Clarkston Elementary

Year 2011 2012 2013




Clarkston - Independence Elementary

Year 2011 2012 2013




Lamphere – District Scores for Third Grade MEAP in Math

Year 2011 2012 2013



Not Proficient 25 33.3 36

Lamphere - Edmondson Elementary

Year 2011 2012 2013




Lamphere – Simonds Elementary

Year 2011 2012 2013





Oakland County – Composite Score for all 28 districts 3rd Grade Math

Year 2011 2012 2013

Proficient 49. 54.3 50.9


Not Proficient 26 25 28.2

State of Michigan – Composite Score for entire state for 3rd Grade Math

Year 2011 2012 2013




The Math RTI Pilot Study’s 4 Evaluation Questions 1. To what degree was the Delta Math RTI process implemented with fidelity? 2. How effective and efficient was the Delta Math screener in identifying students for the RTI

process in math? 3. How effective was the use of the Delta Math RTI process at improving math achievement? 4. In what ways did the implementation of a Math RTI process and collection of Delta Math RTI

Screening Data shift classroom instructional practice in the delivery of math instruction?

Results

1. To what degree was the Delta Math RTI process implemented with fidelity? Data Sources

The RTI Math Team Process Surveys

Implementation Checklist from Year 1

2013 Spring Teacher Surveys

2013 Fall Teacher Surveys

2014 Administrator and Teacher Surveys

The RTI Math Team Process Surveys was designed to capture each building leadership team’s self-assessment of the base line status of teacher knowledge of math curriculum and instruction, and the ongoing status of PLC efforts focused on math. From the survey, all four schools indicated they were at the “beginning” and/or the “partial implemented” stages of implementing RTI for math. Clarkston Elementary rated itself to be somewhat further ahead in the process. The Delta Math RTI process that was implemented by the buildings in the pilot includes 20 steps. The Implementation Planning Checklist was intended to serve as a step by step guide for school leadership teams to implement the Delta Math RTI process. This Checklist was completed by all 4 schools at the end of year 1. Independence and Clarkston El indicated they completed all 20 steps. The two schools in the Lamphere School District completed the checklist at the end of the Year 1 during a joint staff meeting facilitated by Oakland Schools Consultants. Simonds Elementary indicated it implemented steps 1 through 15, which included a complete cycle of screening and intervention for one standard at each grade level from grades 1 through 3, which was the expectation set by the project. Edmonson reported a mixture of


small group and whole class interventions in response to screening data. Both Simonds and Edmonson had partial implementation on steps 16 to 20. Staff Survey Results Participating staff, including the principals, teachers, math coaches, and interventionists, from the 4 pilot buildings were surveyed at 3 different points during the 2 years of the pilot project: the end of year 1 (Spring 2013), the beginning of year 2 (Fall 2013), and the end of year 2 (Spring 2014). On the final staff survey, there were 41 respondents. Unlike the previous surveys, this survey included responses from 4th and 5th grade teachers. Of the 41 total respondents all roles were represented including 1 principal, 33 general education teachers, 3 special education teachers, 2 math coaches, and 2 math interventionists. All grade levels were represented. The surveys provided direct participant feedback regarding staff participation in and perceptions of their experiences with the Delta Math RTI processes and tools. Initially, leadership (including that of Oakland Schools) believed that RTI reading experience would transfer directly into the new math initiative. In fact, it appeared that implementation of RTI for Reading actually competed with RTI for Math in terms of competing for limited access to infrastructure, resources, and time allocated to the different initiatives. It was difficult for buildings to implement both reading and math initiatives in the limited time and space allocated, particularly if attempting to implement with fidelity at all levels (Tiers 1, 2 and 3) of the system simultaneously. During year 1 of the pilot, implementation of universal screening and Tier 2 interventions

occurred at all sites, but not necessarily in all classrooms at all grade levels. A total 74%

indicated the Delta Math Practice Guide (a companion to the Delta Math Implementation

Planning Checklist) was sufficient to guide the implementation process. Only 65% of staff,

however, thought they had adequate training and preparation to initiate the Delta Math process.

In fact, several individuals expressed the opinion that the Delta Math RTI process was too

cumbersome for the general education teachers to implement.

At the beginning of Year 2 of the Pilot (on the Fall 2013 Survey) a total of 83% of respondents said all students were screened in the fall of the year to assess risk status. Only 60%, however, said they had an opportunity to analyze and discuss the results at a grade level meeting, which is considered to be an essential component of any RTI model. Despite the frequent absence of opportunities for group collaboration and problem-solving, the majority of teachers (72%) indicated they used the data to make changes in group interventions (Tier 2), while 67% also indicated they used data from the screeners to make changes in classroom instruction (Tier 1). A small percentage also said the data led them to make changes to curriculum and resources. Although systems-level analysis of screening data and discussion of its implications for Tier 1 curriculum and instruction were undertaken by only 60% of the teachers. A total of 85% of teachers also said that when more than 30% or more of their students failed to meet an assessed standard, they responded by making adjustments to their implementation of core curriculum and instruction. During site visitations, the Oakland Schools consultants observed examples of individual teachers who on their own initiative analyzed screening data and made significant changes in instructional priorities and resource allocations for Tier 1 instruction. Overall, the 4 participating pilot schools did an excellent job of phasing-in implementation of the Delta Math RTI model during the 2 year duration of our pilot project. It must be remembered that RTI is a long-term (minimum 3-5 years), systems-change initiative, and it is unrealistic to expect full implementation with integrity across all 3 Tiers and at multiple levels of the system in the abbreviated timeframe of our pilot project. However, one very important missing piece in the


implementation picture was participation of kindergarten teachers in the project. Because the Delta Math RTI model does not call for universal screening of kindergarten students, and none of our schools reported that cross-grade level meetings including kindergarten teachers were routinely scheduled, kindergarten teacher participation remained a key missing element in implementation efforts. 2. How effective and efficient was the Delta Math screener in identifying students for the

RTI process in math? Data Sources

2013 Spring Teacher Surveys

2013 Fall Teacher Surveys

2014 Administrator and Teacher Surveys

Delta Math, MEAP Math, and NWEA Math Correlation Data

Survey Data

On the Delta Math Spring 2013 Teacher Survey, which was completed at the end of Year 1 of

the Pilot, respondents reported the following when questioned about the effectiveness of the

Delta Math Screener and RtI Process.

97% of respondents thought the screeners provided valuable information on math

instruction and student performance.

A total of 75% of staff felt the post screening grade level meetings were helpful in

making instructional plans to meet the needs of their students.

75% thought the Delta Math Intervention Cycle and Progress Monitoring provided

appropriate instructional opportunities to meet the needs of their students.

On the Delta Math Fall 2013 Survey, approximately 80% of teachers said that they were in agreement with the screening results identifying students who were at-risk for math difficulties. On the Spring 2014 Survey, 76% of respondents stated that the Delta Math screeners were

effective in identify students for the RTI process in math, while 82% indicated the Delta Math

screener provided timely information on students who needed additional support for math. Only

40% of participating staff, however, were of the opinion that student performance data from the

Delta Math Screener was consistent with results students achieved on other math assessments

used in their district. This perception appears to be at odds with the correlational data that was

collected showing strong positive relationships between the Delta Math Screener data and data

from MEAP Math and NWEA Math in our Third Grade cohort from Simonds in Lamphere.

Correlation Data How well do the Delta Math Screening measures correlate with (predict to) student performance on more comprehensive math assessments like MEAP and NWEA. In order to study this question we examined a third grade data set from one of our participating schools which included the student performance measures on the following Fall Assessments:

The Grade 3 Delta Math Readiness Screener

MEAP (Scaled Score)

NWEA (RIT score) Data was gathered from all third grade students and correlations were run comparing student performance on each of the 7 Readiness Standards from the Delta Math Grade 3 Screener and


the Delta Math Screener Total Score with MEAP Math Total Scaled Score and NWEA Math RIT Composite Score. Positive correlations were found between student scores on each of the 7 Delta Math Grade 3 Readiness Standards, the Delta Math Screener Total Score, and total scores on MEAP Math and NWEA Math. The Table below shows a subset of the correlations that we would like to highlight for discussion.

Grade 3 Math Assessment Correlations

MEAP Math Total Score

NWEA Math RIT Score

Delta Math Grade 3 Addition Fluency (within

20)

0.592

0.723

Delta Math Grade 3 Screener Total Score

0.724

0.716

MEAP Math Total Score

1.0

0.819

All of the above correlations are statistically significant at the .001 level and represent strong positive relationships between student scores on the different assessment tools. These results suggest that student scores on the Delta Math Grade 3 Screening tools, including scores on both the individual standards (Addition Fluency to 20) and the Total Score for the screener, do an excellent job of predicting student performance on more comprehensive math outcome measures like the MEAP and NWEA Math assessments. 3. How effective was the Delta Math RTI process at improving math achievement?

Data Sources

Same-year Pre and Post Screening Data

Classroom Case Study

Year-to-Year Screening Comparison Data Same-Year Pre and Post Screening Data Implementation of the Delta Math RtI Process yielded the following Pre to Post Screening results for Grades 1 through 3 at each of the 4 Pilot schools. Below is a brief description of the Common Core Math Standards briefly assessed on the Delta Math Screener for Grades 1 through 3.


Grade 1 Review of universal screening data for 1st Grade from each of the 4 pilot schools displays both differences and similarities in performance between schools. The 2 Clarkston schools showed higher levels of performance on initial fall screening assessments than the 2 Lamphere schools, with Independence Elementary in Clarkston having the highest initial screening scores of the 4 schools. Initial performance on the math screener appeared to parallel the SES and demographic status of the student populations in each building. The pattern of student performance across the 6 standards assessed at the Grade 1 Initial Screening, however, was similar for all 4 schools. In general, 1st graders at all schools did best meeting standards for: counting to 20 and comparing numbers to 10 (Standards 1 and 2). Fewer students passed standards requiring, naming numbers (between 11 and 19) from a visual representation of the number (Standard 3), and finding the missing addend to make 10 (Standard 4). System-wide deficits were evident on standards assessing adding and subtracting fluency within 5 (Standards 5 and 6) with the most significant aggregated deficits being in subtraction. This remained true even on January Post-testing which showed that high percentages of mid-first grade students were still unable to subtract accurately and fluently when working with numbers of 5 or less (and end of kindergarten standard). Below are graphs showing Fall Screening and Winter Post-Screening data for 1st Grade from each of the 4 participating schools.


67

83

43 41

30

11

98 100 98

8591

74

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -K.CC.5

Standard 2 -K.CC.7

Standard 3K.NBT.1

Standard 4 -K.OA.4

Standard 5 -K.OA.5a

Standard 6 -K.OA.5b

Simonds First Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 46

9893

69

33 36

11

98 9888

8378

39

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -K.CC.5

Standard 2 -K.CC.7

Standard 3K.NBT.1

Standard 4 -K.OA.4

Standard 5 -K.OA.5a

Standard 6 -K.OA.5b

Edmonson First Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 41

92 97

75 78 78

49

98 100 95 92 9489

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1K.CC.5

Standard 2K.CC.7

Standard 3K.NBT.1

Standard 4K.OA.4

Standard 5K.OA.5a

Standard 6K.OA.5b

Independence Elementary First Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 63


Significant improvements in achievement from Fall to Winter testing are noted at each of the 4 schools for Grade 1. Achievement gains were greatest on those standards on which the initial aggregated performance was below the 70% threshold, which is intended to trigger Tier 1 interventions (For example Re-teaching of content to all students) as well as Tier 2 interventions for more adversely affected students. Grade 2 Aggregated data for Grade 2 show higher levels of initial performance than that seen at Grade 1 on 4 of the 5 standards assessed at this grade level. Again, Standard 5, assessing fluency for subtraction within 10 was a significant deficit area for each of the 4 pilot buildings. Below is the Grade 2 Pre and Post data for the 4 pilot schools.

84

96

64

79

57

34

98100 98

9185

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -K.CC.5

Standard 2 -K.CC.7

Standard 3K.NBT.1

Standard 4 -K.OA.4

Standard 5 -K.OA.5a

Standard 6 -K.OA.5b

Clarkston Elementary First Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 55


Standard 2 (finding 10 more or 10 less than a number) and Standard 4 (fluency for addition within 10) were also problem areas for Simonds’ Grade 2.

Edmonson Grade 2 students showed excellent performance on all but Standard 5 (fluency for subtraction within 10).

76

66

78

68

24

9792

9790

58

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -1.NBT.1

Standard 2 -1.NBT.5

Standard 3 -1.NBT.3

Standard 4 -1.OA.6a

Standard 5 -1.OA.6c

Simonds Second Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 40

9597

9082

40

100

92 95 92

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -1.NBT.1

Standard 2 -1.NBT.5

Standard 3 -1.NBT.3

Standard 4 -1.OA.6a

Standard 5 -1.OA.6c

Edmonson Second Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 38


Grade 2 students at Independence also struggled with Standard 2 (finding 10 more or 10 less than a number) and Standard 3 (comparing numbers to 99) as well as sharing the common struggle with fluency for subtraction within 10.

Clarkston Elementary Grade 2 students struggled with fluency for addition within 10 (Standard 4) as well as with fluency for subtraction within 10. Grade 3 The pattern of performance for Grade 3 in all 4 schools continues our theme of struggling with subtraction. At Grade 3 assessment of fluency for subtraction within 20 (Standard 5) was the most common deficit area. Subtracting 2-digit numbers (Standard 7) was also a significant

7570

64

85

39

98

92

82 84

66

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -1.NBT.1

Standard 2 -1.NBT.5

Standard 3 -1.NBT.3

Standard 4 -1.OA.6a

Standard 5 -1.OA.6c

Independence Elementary Second Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 62

7584 87

66

30

97

8995

84

45

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -1.NBT.1

Standard 2 -1.NBT.5

Standard 3 -1.NBT.3

Standard 4 -1.OA.6a

Standard 5 -1.OA.6c

Clarkston Elementary Second Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 62


problem area for all 4 schools. Individual buildings also showed other problem areas. The data is below.

Simonds Grade 3 students also struggled with fluency for addition within 20 (Standard 4) and addition of 2-digit numbers (Standard 6).

Edmonson Grade 3 students also struggled with subtraction. They performed better on the addition standards (Standards 4 and 6), but still have room for improvement in both areas.

82 8084

36

16

49

13

9588

10093

71

93 90

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard1 -

2.NBT.3

Standard2 -

2.NBT.8

Standard3 -

2.NBT.4

Standard4 -

2.OA.2a

Standard5 -

2.OA.2b

Standard6 -

2.NBT.5a

Standard7 -

2NBT.5b

Simonds Third Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 42

93 9196

74

30

70

35

96 93 100 96

62

78

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard1 -

2.NBT.3

Standard2 -

2.NBT.8

Standard3 -

2.NBT.4

Standard4 -

2.OA.2a

Standard5 -

2.OA.2b

Standard6 -

2.NBT.5a

Standard7 -

2NBT.5b

Edmonson Third Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N = 45


Independence Grade 3 also struggled with subtraction, but performed solidly in the other areas.

Clarkston Elementary Grade 3 followed a similar pattern, struggling with subtraction and 2-digit addition. A 3rd Grade Math Case Study - Marsha’s Story Marsha is one of two 3rd grade teachers at Simonds Elementary in Lamphere. She was asked by the Principal, Tina Davis, to meet with Bill and Lindson to explain her involvement with Delta Math in a meeting on May 2, 2014. Marsha reviewed the Excel spreadsheet that included her students’ MEAP, NWEA and fall pre and winter post scores for each of the seven standards from the Delta Math readiness screener for the 3rd grade.

88 86 86 91

42

70

26

96 97

84

97

8287

58

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1- 2.NBT.3

Standard 2- 2.NBT.8

Standard 3- 2.NBT.4

Standard 4- 2.OA.2a

Standard 5- 2.OA.2b

Standard 6- 2.NBT.5a

Standard 7-2NBT.5b

Independence Elementary Third Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

N = 77

% Benchmark Fall

% BenchmarkWinter

9490 87

81

43

57

25

9693 93

85

48

66

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1- 2.NBT.3

Standard 2- 2.NBT.8

Standard 3- 2.NBT.4

Standard 4- 2.OA.2a

Standard 5- 2.OA.2b

Standard 6- 2.NBT.5a

Standard 7-2NBT.5b

Clarkston Elementary Third Grade Delta Math Standards Fall to Winter Change 2013-14

% Benchmark Fall

% Benchmark Winter

N =67


Marsha reported that her data analysis showed that the Delta Math fall screening pretest scores were highly correlated with both the MEAP and NWEA comprehensive math test results from the fall of 2013. She indicated that a high percentage of academically low performing students were assigned to her classroom for the fall of the 2013 school year. The Delta Math screening data confirmed that her students were low achieving in mathematics and were at-risk for struggling with the 3rd grade math curriculum.

The graph above compares baseline data from the Fall of 2013 for Marsha’s classroom with that of the other 3rd Grade classroom at Simonds from the same time period. This data confirms Marsha’s perception of the low math achievement levels of her entering third grade students overall. Marsha also shared that she was much more comfortable using the Delta Math Screening tools in Year 2 of the project than she was in Year 1, based on her prior experience with the tools. Thus in Year 2, she was comfortable using the screening data to group students, set goals, and plan for targeted small group intervention. In fact, she stated that she now had enough confidence to discard the previous year’s assessments from the textbook, choosing instead to take a standards-based approach, beginning with the Delta Math 3rd grade readiness standards. She followed this approach for the first semester and was able to help a high percentage of her students to meet benchmark criteria on each of the seven standards assessed on the 3rd Grade Delta Math tools. The following data reflects the progress that Marsha’s students made during the first semester:

73 6877

36

14

45

9

91 91 91

35

17

52

17

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard1 -

2.NBT.3

Standard2 -

2.NBT.8

Standard3 -

2.NBT.4

Standard4 -

2.OA.2a

Standard5 -

2.OA.2b

Standard6 -

2.NBT.5a

Standard7 -

2NBT.5b

Two Grade 3 Classrooms Simonds - Fall 2013

% Benchmark Marsha

% Benchmark Teacher 2


The graph below compares baseline data from the Fall of 2013 for Marsha’s classroom with that of the other 3rd Grade classroom at Simonds from the same time period.

The data indicate that Marsha’s 2014 exiting class clearly out-performed the 2013 cohort on each and every standard assessed. Finally, Marsha indicated that although she had access to the NWEA data on her students, she was not comfortable with nor did she use the NWEA data to group students, plan instruction, or monitor the progress of her students. Year-to-Year Screening Comparison Data At the end of Year 2 of our Pilot Project all schools were encouraged to screen all students using the next grade level’s Readiness Screener. For example, 1st Grade teachers would screen their students using the Delta Math Grade 2 Readiness Screener (based on the Common Core Grade 1 Standards) to assess their readiness to take on the next grade level math curriculum. We asked that this be done at each grade level. One school from each district, Simonds from Lamphere and Independence from Clarkston, completed this task and the data was used to show year-to-year comparisons for student readiness entering each grade level. This comparison data is graphically displayed below.

7368

77

36

14

45

9

90

75

10090

70

8580

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 12.NBT.3

Standard 22.NBT.8

Standard 32.NBT.4

Standard 42.OA.2a

Standard 52.OA.2b

Standard 62.NBT.5a

Standard 72NBT.5b

Grade 3 Classroom Case Study - Fall to Winter 2013-14Improvement by Standard - RTI Implementation with Fidelity

Benchmark % Fall

Benchmark % Winter

5056

50

70

0

62 64

95

74

95

7484

74 74

0

20

40

60

80

100

3.NBT.2aAdd 3 Digit

#s

3.NBT.2bSubtract 3

Digit #s

3.NF.1Identify

Fractions

3.NF.2Fractionson #-Line

3.NF.3dCompareFractions

3.OA.7aMultiply #s

0-10

3.OA.7bDivide #sby 1-10

Simonds Entering 4th Graders 2013 and 2014 Comparison

Benchmark % 2013

Benchmark % 2014


Although it was requested from all schools, only one of the four participating schools, Independence from Clarkston, provided data on first grade readiness gathered from universal screening of exiting kindergarten students. The data from Independence on first grade readiness is displayed below. As you can see, there is no significant change in the year-to-year performance of entering first grade students at Independence. This provides yet another indication of the lack of participation of kindergarten teachers in the project, and the result is little apparent impact on instructional practices and student achievement at the kindergarten level. When we look at students entering grade 2 and above a very different story comes to light. For example, entering Grade 2 students at Simonds in Lamphere showed improvement on all 5 standards that were assessed with 20 – 30% gains on Standard 1 (naming numbers to 120 from a visual representation), Standard 2 (finding 10 more or 10 less than a number), as well as Standard 5 (fluency for subtraction within 10).

At Independence Elementary in Clarkston year-to-year comparisons showed significant improvement on: Standard 1 (naming numbers to 120 from a visual representation), Standard 2

9297

7578 78

49

93 90 87

72 74

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1K.CC.5

Standard 2K.CC.7

Standard 3K.NBT.1

Standard 4K.OA.4

Standard 5K.OA.5a

Standard 6K.OA.5b

Independence El Comparing Entering Grade 1 Students2013 to 2014

% Benchmark Grade 1 Fall2013

% Benchmark K Spring2014

7666

7868

24

96 94

79 77

56

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -1.NBT.1

Standard 2 -1.NBT.5

Standard 3 -1.NBT.3

Standard 4 -1.OA.6a

Standard 5 -1.OA.6c

Simonds Entering Grade 2 Year-to-Year Comparison 2013 to 2014

% Benchmark 2013

% Benchmark 2014


(finding 10 more or 10 less than a number to 99) and Standard 3 (comparing numbers to 99). See below.

Year-to-year comparison of Grade 3 readiness at Simonds in Lamphere showed improvement on all 7 standards assessed. The greatest gains were seen on Standard 4 (addition fluency within 20), Standard 5 (subtraction fluency within 20), Standard 6 (adding 2-digit numbers), and Standard 7 (subtracting 2-digit numbers).

At Independence in Clarkston the Grade 3 Readiness year-to-year comparison showed improvement on 6 of 7 standards assessed. The greatest gains were observed on Standard 5 (fluency for subtraction within 20) and on Standard 7 (subtracting 2-digit numbers). See below.

7570

64

85

39

95 92 9278

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 11.NBT.1

Standard 21.NBT.5

Standard 31.NBT.3

Standard 41.OA.6a

Standard 51.OA.6c

Independence El Comparing Entering Grade 2 Students 2013 to 2014

% Benchmark Grade 2Fall 2013

% Benchmark Grade 1Spring 2014

82 8084

36

16

49

13

98 95 95

72

42

86

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard 1 -2.NBT.3

Standard 2 -2.NBT.8

Standard 3 -2.NBT.4

Standard 4 -2.OA.2a

Standard 5 -2.OA.2b

Standard 6 -2.NBT.5a

Standard 7 -2NBT.5b

Simonds Entering Grade 3 Year-to-Year Comparison2013 to 2014

Benchmark % 2013

Benchmark % 2014

N = 43


At Simonds, year-to-year comparison of entering Grade 4 students showed improvement on all 7 standards assessed. The greatest gains were observed on Standard 1 (adding 3-digit numbers), Standard 2 (Subtracting 3-digit numbers), Standard 3 (identifying fractions from a visual representation) and Standard 5 (comparing fractions).

At Independence significant improvement in year-to-year Grade 4 Readiness was apparent on Standard 4 (placing fractions on a number line), Standard 5 (comparing fractions) Standard 6 (multiplying numbers between 0–10), and Standard 7 (dividing numbers by 1-10). See below.

88 86 8691

42

70

26

95 9492 87

63

77

42

0

20

40

60

80

100

Standard1 -

2.NBT.3

Standard2 -

2.NBT.8

Standard3 -

2.NBT.4

Standard4 -

2.OA.2a

Standard5 -

2.OA.2b

Standard6 -

2.NBT.5a

Standard7 -

2NBT.5b




5056

50

70

0

62 64

95

74

95

7484

74 74

0

20

40

60

80

100

3.NBT.2aAdd 3 Digit

#s

3.NBT.2bSubtract 3

Digit #s

3.NF.1Identify

Fractions



3.OA.7aMultiply #s

0-10


Simonds Comparing Entering Grade 4 Students 2013 to 2014

Benchmark % 2013

Benchmark % 2014


At Simonds the Grade 5 year-to-year comparisons showed significant improvement on 5 of 6 standards assessed, including: Standard 2 (divide a 4-digit by 1-digit number), Standard 3 (comparing fractions), Standard 4 (improper fractions), Standard 5 (add and subtract fractions) and Standard 6 (multiply whole numbers by fractions). It must be noted that despite significant gains much work needs to be done to improve student achievement on all of the standards assessed. See below.

Looking at the Grade 5 Readiness year-to-year comparison data from Independence shows improvement on 4 of the 6 standards assessed. Improvement was evident on Standard 1 (multiply a 4-digit by 2-digit number), Standard 4 (improper fractions), Standard 5 (add and subtract fractions) and Standard 6 (multiply whole numbers by fractions). Again, as was the case with Simonds Elementary in Lamphere, it should be noted that despite gains in some areas much work needs to be done to improve student achievement on all of the standards assessed for Grade 5 Readiness. See below.

98

7987

30

4133

13

93

7888 80

70 76

28

0

20

40

60

80

100

3.NBT.2aAdd 3 Digit

#s

3.NBT.2bSubtract 3

Digit #s

3.NF.1Identify

Fractions



3.OA.7aMultiply #s

0-10



% Benchmark Grade 4 Fall2013


47

8

29

12 12

3545

34

64 62

53

72

0

20

40

60

80

100

4.NBT.5Multiply 4 x

2 digits

4.NBT.6Divide 4 by

1 digit

4.NF.2Comparefractions

4.NF.3bImproperfractions

4.NF.3cAdd/Subfractions

4.NF.4bMultiply #sby fractions

Simonds Entering Grade 5 Year-to-Year Comparison2013 to 2014

% Benchmark 2013

% Benchmark 2014


At this point we remind the reader that the Pilot Project’s primary focus was on implementing the Delta Math RTI framework for grades K through 3. Both districts and all 4 elementary schools chose voluntarily to expand their focus to K through 5. Thus we are sharing with you the available data on Grades 4 and 5 Readiness that reflects the outcomes of math instruction through grade 4, when only grades K through 3 were initially supported by the project. Consequently, it is no surprise that the Readiness Data for Grade 4 (which reflects the outcome of Grade 3 instruction) shows a much higher percentage of students meeting grade level readiness standards than does the similar data for Grade 5 Readiness (reflecting the outcome of Grade 4 instruction) because Grade 4 and 5 teachers were not originally targeted for support within our Pilot Project structure. 4. In what ways did the implementation of a Math RTI process and collection of Delta

Math RTI Screening Data shift classroom instructional practice in the delivery of math instruction?

Fall 2013 Teacher Survey

Spring 2014 Administrator and Teacher Survey

Classroom observations

Teacher and Administrator Interviews What is the evidence demonstrating that as a result of implementing RTI for Math participating schools shifted math instructional practices to improve math achievement for all students? First, it was observed that in both districts implementation of a RTI process for Math stimulated much needed dialogue between teachers, math consultants, and district leadership regarding math curriculum, instruction, and student achievement in math. This ongoing dialogue was the first step toward changing math instructional practices and improving math achievement in the participating districts. Here are some examples of actions taken by the districts to improve Tier 1 math instruction:

Both districts began to research new textbooks and curriculum resources to better support core instruction. In fact, both districts sent teams to participate in an OS Math Department Initiative that provided a systematic process to evaluate new potential math textbooks aligned with the new high standards of Common Core.

In response to early numeracy needs identified by the screening data, the Lamphere Math Consultant implemented a new numeracy instructional resource, Number Talks, with a group of early elementary teachers. Meanwhile, Clarkston District Leadership

53

27

46

22 27

5358

27 2736

42

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

4.NBT.5Multiply 4 x

2 digits

4.NBT.6Divide 4 by 1

digit

4.NF.2Comparefractions

4.NF.3bImproperfractions

4.NF.3cAdd/Subfractions

4.NF.4bMultiply #sby fractions





initiated professional development focused on Number Sense with all of its K – 3 teachers during year 2 of the project. This effort continued and was expanded to include all K–5 teachers in the year following the conclusion of the Pilot.

Another area of need identified by the universal screening data was fractions instruction. Lamphere district examined and made changes to the scope and sequence of fractions instruction and sent a teacher team to an OS Summer Institute on Fractions Instruction the summer following year 2 of the project.

Finally, each district decided to continue its Math RTI initiatives in the year following the conclusion of the Pilot.

In addition to the actions cited above there is considerable evidence from survey and interview data regarding changes to math instructional practices which resulted from implementation of the Math RTI process. On the Delta Math Spring 2014 Survey, there were 41 respondents, including staff from all 4 buildings in both districts. Unlike previous surveys, this survey included responses from 4th and 5th grade teachers. Of the 41 total respondents all district roles and positions were represented including one principal, 33 general education teachers, three special education teachers, two math coaches, and two math interventionists. All grade levels were represented. Below is a summary of the results:

72% thought the Delta Math information was somewhat or very effective in helping to close

the achievement gap of students struggling with math.

Teacher comments suggest that the math curriculum is currently undergoing development

and that much work needs to be done to clarify priorities for instruction.

74% indicated that the Delta Math data caused them to change their instructional priorities

and allocation of instructional time. For example, the following comments indicate how the

Delta Math data has been helpful in making instructional changes:

o It has caused us to look at the time we spend teaching mathematics. We have

realized more time must be allocated to teaching this core subject. It has also

helped us to determine where the gaps are. Teachers from the grade level below

look at the data to fill in those gaps with their current students.

o We need a stronger effort with addition/subtraction facts and strategies with

composing and decomposing numbers.

o Most students have come in 2 years in a row struggling with fractions, so I have to

continue to teach whole group!

o We moved some things around. We used to teach fractions and decimals at the end

of the year, but have changed the order of units around since we know the screener

very heavily weighted on fractions.

o Many of the teachers commented that they ended up spending time teaching

concepts that students were expected to have mastered in previous grade levels.

o Changes were made based on the following priorities - classroom instruction,

individual interventions, group interventions, curriculum and curriculum resources.

o It has kept me more focused and supported more individualized instruction.

o When using data to plan instructional interventions for students, 85% used the Delta

Math screening data, 83% used teacher observation, 63% used classroom formative

assessments, 35% used unit tests, 30% used NWEA, and 25% used student

interviews.

When teachers were asked to reflect on the current state of their knowledge of math content

respondents stated the following:


A total of 74% indicated they were very knowledgeable or knowledgeable about the grade

level math curriculum. Unfortunately, 24% indicated they were somewhat knowledgeable or

not very knowledgeable about the curriculum at their grade level.

62% of teachers reported they were knowledgeable or very knowledgeable about the math

learning progressions that are represented in the grade level curriculum above and below

their assigned grade levels. 36% reported they were somewhat knowledgeable or not very

knowledgeable about grade level curriculum above or below their assigned grade level.

Did respondents believe that Math RtI should be continued?

Many comments across many survey questions identified clarification and support of the grade level math curriculum is needed.

A total 92% reported that it was important or very important that their school continue to

implement an RTI process for math.

Teachers say they need more time for data analysis, discussion and planning.

Some teachers expressed concern that the focus on math intervention detracted from

instruction on the grade level math curriculum.

There were complaints about the labor intensive nature of student data entry required in

preparation for use with the online system.

There needs to be much more training for teachers, especially in the initial year of RTI implementation. There were a couple of comments that favored continuing Math RTI but suggesting that there may be a better choice than the Delta Math screener. Delta Math Final Structured Interview for Administrators – June 2014 What were the perceptions of district leadership regarding the role of Math RTI in improving the quality of math instruction in their schools and districts? Is there a compelling need for a change in Math Curriculum and Instruction? Some responses from Clarkston and Lamphere District Leaders follow:

We are in a transition time, like many other districts, with the uncertainty of teaching to new standards within the common core. We have some insecurity. Sometimes we are unaware of or unsure of what our math curriculum is and what should be done on a daily basis.

Our school’s Math scores have dropped significantly each year. This is a huge concern and a challenge which must be addressed.

The Math RTI screeners can be helpful in identifying the need to fix a system which promotes students to the next grade without mastering the necessary skills and conceptual understanding necessary for success at the next level. The competing element is in us. Do we make the time, dedicate the resources and do we have the knowledge base to make the necessary changes.

How important is it that your building continues to implement an RTI process for math? Please explain.

Reflecting on what we already do in Language Arts we as a staff see the need to create and implement a similar system for math. We need to continue this process with new and added vigor.

The RTI process is very important. I believe we need to know where each child is and what needs to address to move them forward.

I also believe it is very important but our district has limited resources, and I am always conscious of what we use the resources for and are we being effective in how they are being used. We are constantly weighing what direction we are heading and the use of our limited resources.


We need to further our discussion about whether we have holes in our tier one teaching and how to improve the delivery of our core instruction. Having data about the number of students not passing the grade level benchmarks of the previous grade causes us to look at the larger and more important issue of our core instruction. These changes may take more time but the intent is to reduce the number of students being identified as needing extra support.

What is the administrator’s role in ensuring that implementing a RTI framework leads to positive changes in instructional practices for math?

The role of the administrator focuses on communicating the priority that is now placed on math. Time needs to be allocated to collect the data but then also time to make sense of the data in order to put a plan of action in place. Also include time for self-reflection by the teachers to determine what new skills they may need to meet the needs of their students.

Arrange and allow time for teachers to meet. Provide substitutes, materials, and other resources so teachers can develop instructional plans. Accountability (where are we?)

The leader role comes in creating the urgency of need. The data needs to be delivered in a way that begs action. The vision of action includes follow through with focus, including planning and that this type of use of time is valued.

In elementary schools how much time and resources are allocated to teach math. Also, the reality that not all elementary teachers see themselves as mathematicians. Those teachers are at the secondary level. To value elementary teachers as mathematicians is an important role that the larger system needs to value.

There is a need to continue the PLC type discussion of how to implement in a way that benefits all students. Some teachers have had success and their stories need to heard and shared. Further discussions need to be scheduled and pursued towards more uniform implementation across all grades.

The leader’s role is one of facilitation of resources. We need to make expectations clear and provide time to grow the change.

What are your next steps in improving math curriculum and instruction?

We need to provide clear and coherent curriculum. Our PD needs to focus on high quality instruction. Additional concerns surround high class sizes and limited support personnel.

We need to continue to work on Tier I. There needs to be a common understanding by all. We all need to clarify the structure for Tier II and the role of classroom teacher in intervention.

Further discussion on this question brought up the philosophical question of purchasing a sequential textbook or a highly trained staff that knows their tools and goals. The conversation went back to the need to inventory what tools and resources we have and make sure we know how to use them and that resources are in the hands of the teacher that needs them.

As new staff comes on board and personnel are shifted around there is a need to orient staff and clarify available resources and expectations of their use. Additional resources may come after other tasks of managing resources are taken.

The focus starts on teaching the concepts and procedures well at Tier 1, so that at least 90% of the students have learned and demonstrate understanding of what was taught. Then what needs to be done differently for Tier 2 students’? How do we teach the same content that provides benefits for these students’ learning and understanding and when do we teach in new ways or for more time. Are different interventions necessary for Tier 3 students? We need to problem solve around the question of what resources are necessary in terms of materials, texts and training, plus always the need for additional time for planning and collaborating.


Further discussion revolved around the need for additional formative assessment that is diagnostic for creating the necessary interventions needed for the differentiated teaching for the tier 2 & 3 students.

References

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 8-12.

Bryant, D. P. (2005). Commentary on early identification and intervention for students with

mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 340–345.

doi:10.1177/00222194050380041001

Bryant, B. R., Bryant, D. P., Gersten, R., Hughes, K., Pfannenstiel, K. H., Porterfield, J., &

Roberts, G. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with

mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7-23.

Clarke, B., Doabler, C. T., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., Jungjohann, K., & Cary, M. S. (2011).

Introduction of response to intervention in mathematics. In Gersten and Newman-

Gonchar (Eds.), Understanding RTI in mathematics, 1-16. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.

Brookes Publishing Co.


French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science

interventions for organization improvement (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall, Inc.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to

multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263-279.

Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Geary, D. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning

disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental

Behavior in Pediatrics, 32(3), 250 – 263. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e318209

Geary, D. C., Bailey, D. H., Hoard, M. K. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and

mathematical learning disability with a simple screening tool: The number sets test.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 265-279.

doi:101177/0734282908330592

Gersten, R. et al. IES Practice Guide: Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics:

Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools. U.S. Department of

Education.

Gresham, G. (2009). Response to intervention: Practical strategies for intervening with students

before they fall too far behind in mathematics (Grades K-6). Bellevue, WA: Bureau of

Education and Research.

Gresham, G., & Little, M. (2012). RTI in math class. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(1),

20–29.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. (2004). 20 U.S.C. 33 Section 1400 et seq.

Retrieved from www.ed.gov/policy/aspeced/guid/idea2004.html

Jordan, N., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters:

Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental

Psychology, 45(3), 850-867. doi:10.1037/a0014939

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001) Adding it up: Helping children learn

mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9822.html.

Kotter, J. P. (2012). The eight steps change model. Retrieved from

http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps/changesteps

http://www.ed.gov/policy/aspeced/guid/idea2004.html

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9822.html

http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps/changesteps


Kupzyk, S., Daly III, E. J., Ihlo, T., & Young, N. D. (2012). Modifying instruction within tiers in

multi-tiered intervention programs. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 219-230.

doi:10.1002/pits.21595

Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., & Beyers, S. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics:

Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 257-272. doi:10.1002/pits.21596

Munro, J. H. (2008). Educational leadership: Roundtable viewpoints. NY, NY: McGraw-Hill.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011) The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) –

Mathematics.. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf

National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, NCSM. (2013). Improving student achievement

by infusing highly effective instructional strategies into RTI Tier I instruction. Retrieved

from

https://www.mathedleadership.org/member/docs/resources/positionpapers/NCSMPositio

nPaper12.pdf

National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, NCSM. (2014). It’s time: Themes and

Imperatives for mathematics education. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the

National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC,

2008. O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and

sustaining RTI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 297 – 310. doi:

10.1002/pits.21598

RTI Action Network. A program for the national center for learning disabilities. Retrieved from

http://rtinetwork.org/learn/what/rtiandmath

Riccomini, P. J., & Smith, G. W. (2011). Introduction of response to intervention in

mathematics. In R. Gersten & R. Newman-Gonchar (Eds.), Understanding RTI in

mathematics, 1-16. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Riccomini, P. J., & Witzel, B. S. (2010). Response to Intervention in Math. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Van de Walle, J., Karp, K., Bay-Williams, J. (2010). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally Seventh Edition. Pearson Inc.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf



http://rtinetwork.org/learn/what/rtiandmath

Date post:	04-Jul-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Oakland Schools Math RTI Screening and Early Intervention … · 2015. 12. 7. · Oakland Schools:...

Documents