RTI Blueprint: Tier 2 and Tier 3 Intervention Decisions and Eligibility Considerations Georgia...

RTI Blueprint: Tier 2 and Tier 3 Intervention Decisions and Eligibility Considerations

Georgia Beginning Teacher Academy

Dr. George M. Batsche

Co-Director, Institute for School Reform

Florida Problem-Solving/RtI Statewide Project

University of South Florida

Tampa, Florida

Resources

• www.nasdse.org– RtI Primer and Research Bibliography

• www.fcrr.org– Interventions– Integrity Monitoring Tools (Tier 1/2)

• www.texasreading.org• www.whatworks.org• www.interventioncentral.org

http://www.nasdse.org/

http://www.fcrr.org/

http://www.texasreading.org/

http://www.whatworks.org/

http://www.interventioncentral.org/

The Vision

• 95% of students at “proficient” level

• Students possess social and emotional behaviors that support “active” learning

• A “unified” system of educational services– One “ED”

• Student Support Services perceived as a necessary component for successful schooling

Response to Intervention

• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions.

(Batsche, et al., 2005)

• Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

Steven

20 1822 21

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

School Weeks

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

in

Tier 2: Strategic -PALS

Aimline= 1.50 words/week

Trendline = 0.55 words/week

Poor RtI

Steven

20 1822 21

2428

3136 35

42 4440

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

in


Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension Strategies


Trendline = 0.2.32 words/week

Positive RtI

Problem-Solving/RtIResource Management

• Public Education Resource Deployment– Support staff cannot

resource more than 20% of the students

– Service vs Effectiveness--BIG ISSUE

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90%80-90%

Students

Academic Behavior

Intervention Framework

• Intensive Interventions– A few

• Supplemental Interventions– Some

• Core/Universal Interventions– All

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90%80-90%

Students

Academic Behavior

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5%

Tier 3: Comprehensive and Intensive InterventionsIndividual Students or Small Group (2-3)Reading: Scholastic Program,

Reading,Mastery, ALL, Soar to Success, Leap Track, Fundations

1-5%

Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsIndividual CounselingFBA/BIPTeach, Reinforce, and Prevent (TRP)Assessment-basedIntense, durable procedures

5-10%Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsStudents that don’t respond to the core curriculumReading: Soar to Success, Leap Frog, CRISS strategies, CCC Lab Math: Extended DayWriting: Small Group, CRISS strategies, and “Just Write Narrative” by K. Robinson

5-10% Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)Small Group CounselingParent Training (Behavior & Academic)Bullying Prevention ProgramFBA/BIP Classroom Management Techniques, Professional Development Small Group Parent Training ,Data

80-90%Tier 1: Core CurriculumAll studentsReading: Houghton MifflinMath: HarcourtWriting: Six Traits Of WritingLearning Focus Strategies

80-90% Tier 1: Universal InterventionsAll settings, all studentsCommittee, Preventive, proactive strategiesSchool Wide Rules/ Expectations Positive Reinforcement System (Tickets & 200 Club) School Wide Consequence System School Wide Social Skills Program, Data (Discipline, Surveys, etc.) Professional Development (behavior)Classroom Management Techniques,Parent Training

Three Tiered Model of School Supports:Anclote Elementary-Pasco County

Students

How Does it Fit Together? Uniform Standard Treatment Protocol

Addl.Diagnostic

Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

2x weekly

All Students at a grade level

Fall Winter Spring

UniversalScreening

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly ITBS/ITED

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

2-4 times/month

None

Small Group, all less than proficient students get the same, balanced, research-validated instruction

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Define the ProblemDefine the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring BehaviorDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Define the ProblemDefine the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring BehaviorDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

1. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION• Identify replacement behavior• Data- current level of performance• Data- benchmark level(s)• Data- peer performance• Data- GAP analysis

2. PROBLEM ANALYSIS• Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)• Develop predictions/assessment

3. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT• Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available and hypotheses verified• Proximal/Distal• Implementation support• Intervention Fidelity/Integrity

1. Response to Intervention (RtI)• Frequently collected data• Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

Data For Each Tier - Where Do They Come From?

• Tier 1: Universal Screening, accountability assessments, grades, classroom assessments, referral patterns, disciplikne referrals

• Tier 2: Universal Screening - Group Level Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress monitoring, large-scale assessment data and classroom assessment

• Tier 3: Universal Screenings, Individual Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress monitoring, formative assessment, other informal assessments

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?

• Positive Response– Gap is closing– Can extrapolate point at which target student will “come in range”

of peers--even if this is long range• Questionable Response

– Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening

– Gap stops widening but closure does not occur• Poor Response

– Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

• Positive, Questionable, Poor Response• Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)

– Positive• Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at least).• Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional

independence.– Questionable

• Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.

– Poor• Return to problem solving for new intervention

Tiers or Levels

• Tier One- Examining “Universal” Interventions• Questions:

– How is this student doing compared to other students? GAP analysis– What percent of other students are achieving district benchmarks? Effectiveness of

instruction• Hypotheses

– Ho: Has this student been exposed to an effective learning environment?– Ho: Has this student had access to an effective learning environment?

Tier 1 Data Days

• Typically, Tier 1 analyses done in the summer

• Based on:– High Stakes Assessment Data– District-Wide Assessments– Disaggregated Data

• Decisions used throughout year

• Core instruction changes decided at this time

Interventions: Tier 1

• Group students based on skill data• Differentiate instruction based on grouping• Organize students based on skill performance

– Higher performing, more students, – Lower performing, fewer students

• Same amount of time, different use of that time• Breadth of skill focus might vary• Baseline is AET for core instruction

Tiers or Levels

• Tier Two- Examining “Supplemental” Interventions

• Hypotheses:– Ho: Student requires additional time for direct instruction– Ho: Focus of the curriculum must narrow

• Assessment:– DIBELS, CBM, district assessments

• Interventions:– Increase AET (90-120-180)

e.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan– Narrow focus to fewer, barrier skills– District Supplemental Curriculum

Data Infrastructure: Using Existing Data to Predict Intervention Needs

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

change?

Data-Driven Infrastructure:Establishing a Building Baseline

• Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years– Identifies problems teachers feel they do not have the

skills/support to handle– Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the staff, the

resources currently in place and the “history” of what constitutes a referral in that building

– Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years– Identifies focus of Professional Development Activities AND

potential Tier II and III interventions– Present data to staff. Reinforces “Need” concept

Data-Driven Infrastructure:Establishing a Building Baseline

• Assess current “Supplemental Interventions”– Identify all students receiving supplemental

interventions– For those interventions, identify

• Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction, etc)• Duration (minutes/week)• Provider

– Aggregate• Identifies instructional support types in building• This constitutes Tier II and III intervention needs

Tier 1 Data Example

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Characteristics of Tier 2 Interventions

• Available in general education settings• Opportunity to increase exposure (academic engaged time) to

curriculum• Opportunity to narrow focus of the curriculum• Sufficient time for interventions to have an effect (10-30 weeks)• Often are “standardized” supplemental curriculum protocols

Intervention Development

• Criteria for “Appropriate” and “Effective” Interventions:– Evidence-based

• Type of Problem• Population• Setting• Levels of Support

• Focused on most important needs• Group interventions have priority• Interventions MUST be linked to Tier 1 focus, materials, performance criteria

Interventions: Tier 2

• First resource is TIME (AET)– HOW much more time is needed?

• Second resource is curriculum– WHAT does the student need?

• Third resource is personnel– WHO or WHERE will it be provided?

Tier 2: Getting TIME

• “Free” time--does not require additional personnel– Staggering instruction

– Differentiating instruction

– Cross grade instruction

– Skill-based instruction

• Standard Protocol Grouping• Reduced range of “standard” curriculum• After-School• Home-Based

Tier 2: Curriculum

• Standard protocol approach• Focus on essential skills• Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of core

instruction• Linked directly to core instruction materials and benchmarks• Criterion for effectiveness is 70% of students receiving Tier 2

will reach benchmarks

Tier 2: Personnel

• EVERYONE in the building is a potential resource• Re-conceptualize who does what• Personnel deployed AFTER needs are identified• WHERE matters less and less• REMEMBER, student performance matters more than labels, locations and

staff needs.• A school cannot deliver intensive services to more than 7% of the population

Intervention Support

• Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff

• All intervention plans should have intervention support

• Principals should ensure that intervention plans have intervention support

• Teachers should not be expected to implement plans for which there is no support

Critical Components of Intervention Support

• Support for Intervention Integrity

• Documentation of Intervention Implementation

• Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical components


• Pre-meeting– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Determine logistics

• First 2 weeks– 2-3 meetings/week– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Revise, if necessary


• Second Two Weeks– Meet twice each week

• Following weeks– Meet at least weekly– Review data– Review steps– Discuss Revisions

• Approaching benchmark– Review data– Schedule for intervention fading– Review data

Elsie

• Second grade student• End of School Year• Regular Education• Scores at 62 wcpm in second grade material• Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation)

comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF – not great, not terrible

Elsie Grade 2 Tier 1 Oral Reading Fluency

39

53

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er

Benchmark

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction

• Step 1: Screening

• ORF = 62 wcpm, end of second grade benchmark for at risk is 70 wcpm (see bottom of box)

• Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 12th percentile + or -

• Elsie’s teacher reports that she struggles with multisyllabic words and that she makes many decoding errors when she reads

• Is this student at risk?

No YesMove to Tier 2: Strategic Interventions

This Student is at Risk, General Education Not Working

Elsie

Continue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction will be provided to Elsie• She will participate in two different supplemental groups, one

focused on Decoding (Phonics for Reading; Archer) and one focused on fluency building (Read Naturally; Imholt)

• She will participate in small group instruction 3x per week, 30 minutes each – and she will also continue with her core instruction

• Supplemental instruction implemented by certified teachers in her school (2 different teachers)

• Progress monitoring about every 2 weeks

Elsie Tier 2 (Results 2)End of Grade 2 and Grade 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er

Tier 2: Supplemental

Note: Third Grade Msmt.Materials used at end of Second grade and throughThird grade

Aimline = .83 words per week

Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie

• Benchmark Level: 90 WCPM• Current Level: 47 WCPM• Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 34 WCPM• Time to Benchmark: 41 Weeks• Rate of Growth Required:

– 34/41= .83 WCPM for Elsie– NOT VERY AMBITIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• What would happen if we moved the target to the middle of the “some risk box?”


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er

Tier 2: Supplemental -


Aimline = 1.29 words per week



– 53/41= 1.29 WCPM for Elsie• Peer Group Rate = about 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP

(for “some risk” benchmark)• REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET


62

4752

56 5855 56

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er





Questionable RtI

Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction - Revision

• The intervention appeared to be working. What the teachers thought was needed was increased time in supplemental instruction.

• They worked together and found a way to give Elsie 30 minutes of supplemental instruction, on phonics and fluency, 5x per week.



– 44/27= 1.62 WCPM for Elsie• Peer Group Rate = 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for

“some risk” benchmark)• REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET


62

4752

56 5855 56

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er






62

4752

56 5855 56

6265 66

7377 75 76

89

8288

92 90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er




Trendline = 1.51words/week

Supplemental Revised

Aimline = 1.62words/week

Good RtI

By the Spring of Third Grade

• Elsie’s reading accuracy had improved significantly. Her average % correct hovers around 95 percent.

• She still struggles with multisyllabic words

• Normatively, at periodic and annual review time, she is now performing at about the 19th percentile compared to peers from Heartland AEA. She is catching up!

• Elsie is not a student with a disability


• Step 1: Screening• ORF = on track for 100 wcpm, end of third grade

benchmark for some risk is 110 wcpm (see top of box)

• Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 19th percentile + or -

• Is this student at risk?• Still a bit of risk, maintain Tier II instruction for

another benchmark period, if progress continues, move to tier 1

No YesMaintain Tier 2: Strategic Interventions

Elsie

Continue Monitoring or Move Back to Tier 1

Steven

• Second grade student• Beginning of school year• Regular Education• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material• Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation)

comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

Steven

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

in

Benchmark


– Step 1: Screening• ORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44

wcpm• Comprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5

areas• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working• Is this student at risk?

No YesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsRita

Steven

Continue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions & Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction in Rita’s group (3-4 students with similar skill levels)

• Standard protocol implementation• 3x per week, 30 minutes each• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)• Implemented by 2 different available instructional personnel• Implemented for 8 weeks• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

Steven

20 1822 21

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

in




Poor RtI

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention & Instruction

– Step 2: Is student responsive to intervention?• ORF = 24 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks

away) for some risk = 52 wcpm• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5

words/week • Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/week• Below comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark• Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 2?

NoYesMove to Tier 3: Intensive Interventions

Steven

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 1

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Interventions & Instruction

• Supplemental, 1:3, pull-out instruction• Individualized Problem-Solving, Targeted Instruction• Specific decoding and analysis strategies • Emphasis on comprehension strategies• 5x per week, 30 minutes each• Implemented by 2 different available instructional

personnel• Implemented for 8 weeks• Progress monitoring once every week

Steven

20 1822 21

2428

3136 35

42 4440

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

in





Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention & Instruction

– Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 3?• ORF = 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away)

for some risk = 52 wcpm• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5

words/week • Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/week• At or above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas• Student on target to attain benchmark• Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention?• Move student back to Strategic intervention

NoYesMove to Sp Ed Eligibility Determination

Steven

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 2

Tier 3 Decisions

• GAP?

• Rate??

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

Bart

• Second grade student• Beginning of school year• Regular Education• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material• Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation)

comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

Bart

20 1822 21

24 2225

3026

2830

2831

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

in





II

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• Problem Identification– Oral Expression

– Listening Comprehension

– Written Expression

– Basic Reading Skill

– Reading Fluency Skills

– Reading Comprehension

– Mathematics Calculation

– Mathematics Problem-Solving

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• Relevant behavior noted during the observation and relationship of Bx to academic functioning– Data from required

observation

Behavior Observation:Questions to be Answered

• What is the student behavior during difficult academic tasks?– % On-Task Attention– Level of Productivity (e.g., work completed)– Accuracy of work Completed

• Is this pattern different from academic tasks which are not difficult for the student?

• What is the relationship between target student behavior and behavior of students who can do the task? (average student)

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation• The child does not achieve

adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards

– GAP Analysis from Tier 1– Student/peer performance– Effective instruction

AND

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation• The child does not make sufficient

progress to meet age or to meet state-approved standards when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention

– RtI Data from Tiers 2 and 3– Poor response to intervention– Lack of functional independence

OR

Guiding Questions:Case of “Steven”

• “Steven”– What was the RtI for Tier 2?– What was the RtI for Tier 3?– Is he a functionally independent learner?– Does he have a “need” for special education?– Are you ready to complete the comprehensive

evaluation?

Steven

20 1822 21

2428

3136 35

42 4440

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

in





Guiding Questions:Case of “Bart”

• “Bart”– What was the RtI for Tier 2?– What was the RtI for Tier 3?– Is he a functionally independent learner?– Does he have a “need” for special education?– Are you ready to complete the comprehensive

evaluation?

Bart

20 1822 21

24 2225

3026

2830

2831

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

in





Guiding Questions:Case of Victor

– What was the RtI for Tier 2?– What was the RtI for Tier 3?– Is he a functionally independent learner?– Does he have a “need” for special education?– Are you ready to complete the comprehensive

evaluation?

II

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation• The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and

weaknesses in performance, achievement or both , relative to age, state-approved grade level standards or intellectual development that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a SLD, using appropriate assessments

– Differential Academic Performance Levels

NOTE: Requirement for a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement was removed.

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation• The findings are not primarily the result of:

– Sensory or Motor Disability– Mental Retardation

• Assess Adaptive Behavior First– Emotional Disturbance

• Data from observation• Observation and performance

data– Cultural Factors

• AYP Data for Race (NCLB)• Comparative AYP for Culture

(Local Norms)– Environmental or Economic

Disadvantage• AYP Data for Low SES

– Limited English Proficiency• AYP Data for LEP

Date post:	20-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tracey-barnett
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

RTI Blueprint: Tier 2 and Tier 3 Intervention Decisions and Eligibility Considerations Georgia...

Documents