Supporting the Implementation ofResponse to Intervention
Ingham ISDOctober 22, 2010
Dr. George M. BatscheProfessor and Co-DirectorInstitute for School Reform
Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI ProjectUniversity of South Florida
Culture of Change• No Child Left Behind (ESEA)
– Accountability (Outcomes, Response to Instruction)-More Rigor– Disaggregated Data– State-Approved, State-Level Benchmarks-Higher Expectations– More exposure to the curriculum
• IDEIA– Insistence on “effective instruction” in in reading and math in general education– Requirement for a different type of assessment
• Continuous Progress Monitoring• Universal screening
– Higher expectations for students with disabilities (All Can Learn)
• Learn Act• A Blueprint for Reform-2010
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.
LEARN Act and RTI
• LEARN Act is the literacy foundation of ESEA
• RTI Language in the LEARN Act is called “Multi-Tier System of Supports
• Multi-Tier System of SupportsThe term ‘‘multi-tier system of supports’’ means a comprehensive system of differentiated supports that includes evidence-based instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, formative assessment, and research-based interventions matched to student needs, and educational decision making using student outcome data.
A Blueprint for Reform-2010
• "Instead of labeling failures, we will reward success. Instead of a single snapshot, we will recognize progress and growth. And instead of investing in the status quo, we must reform our schools to accelerate student achievement, close achievement gaps..." (Forward)
• ”…districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape." (Page 6)
• ”A commitment to...Meeting the needs of students with disabilities throughout ESEA and through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." )Page 19)
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
National Perspective
• 71% of districts are in some stage of implementing RTI – up from 60% in 2008 and 44% in 2007
• RTI is being increasingly implemented across all grade levels with a significant increase in high school implementation compared to 2008
• Of districts with enough data, 83% indicated RTI has reduced the number of referrals to special education
• Districts reported the three primary obstacles to implementing RTI as: Insufficient teacher training, Lack of intervention resources, Lack of data, knowledge, skills for tracking/charting
• www.spectrumk12.com
8
Intensity vs. Severity
Intensity is measured by how far behind a student is academically or how different the behavior is from peers or norms.
Severity is degree to which the student responds to well delivered intervention.
A student could have an intense problem, but catch up quickly. Not Severe
A student could have an intense problem, but NOT respond to well delivered interventions. Severe
9
Intensity vs. Severity
An INTENSE problem is not necessarily a severe problem.
Students with disabilities exhibit BOTH intensity AND severity
10
Paradigm Shift
• Eligibility focus– Diagnose and Place– Get label
• Outcome focus – Problem Solving and
Response to Intervention– Get help
Consensus Building: A Shift in Thinking
The central question is not: “What about the students is causing the
performance discrepancy?” but
“What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learners and
learning environment should be altered so that the students will learn?”
This shift alters everything elseKen Howell
12
“Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have and under-estimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up”
Belasco & Stayer, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring to Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead, 1994
TIER I: Core, UniversalAcademic and Behavior
13
GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels
Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students.Tier I: Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction.Tier I: Begins with clear goals:1.What exactly do we expect all students to learn ?2.How will we know if and when they’ve learned it?3.How you we respond when some students don’t learn?4.How will we respond when some students have already learned?
Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and
viable core curriculum
TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted
14
Tier II For approx. 20% of students
Core +
Supplemental
…to achieve benchmarksTier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards).1.Where are the students performing now?2.Where do we want them to be?3.How long do we have to get them there?4.How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there?5.What resources will move them at that rate?
TIER III: Intensive, Individualized
15
Tier III For Approx 5% of Students
Core
+Supplemental
+Intensive Individual Instruction
…to achieve benchmarks
1.Where is the student performing now?2.Where do we want him to be?3.How long do we have to get him there?4.What supports has he received?5.What resources will move him at that rate?
Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals.
in order to meet benchmarks.
=
These students get these tiersof support
+
Three Tiered Model of Student Supports
The goal of the tiers is student success, not labeling.
Building the Infrastructure toImplement a System of RtI
Infrastructure
• School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT)– Communication, Data Sharing– Roles/Responsibilities
• Problem-Solving Process• Data Systems and Technology• Decision-Rules• Building the Tiers• Intervention Development and Decisions
Problem Solving teams
• A school-based group composed of various school personnel who convene to a provide assistance to children who are having academic or behavioral difficulties in school.
• The team is responsible for implementing a problem solving approach to identify and intervene in response to student’s’ needs within the arena of general education.
• Schwanz & Barbour, 2005
Problem Solving versus Pre-referral teams
• PSTs develop interventions designed to resolve a student’s academic or behavioral difficulty in a general education setting whenever possible.
– Identify, through a tiered process, the supports and instructional strategies the student needs to make and maintain progress
• PRTs recommend one or two interventions and then based on the student’s progress, determine whether a referral for an ESE evaluation is warranted to gather pscyho-educational information.
– Triage whether student should be referred for ESE evaluation
Key Issues in Building a Team
– Teams function best when all members have strong group process skills
– Many teams have some (but not all) members who have been trained in group process skills
– Training the team in group process skills provides the foundation needed to work effectively using a problem solving model
Addressing Time Factors• Time available for meetings is often sited as biggest barrier to
success
• Set aside a meeting time and make it sacred
• Time is managed best when members come to the meetings prepared
• When a firm meeting time has been established and is supported, meeting becomes part of the school culture
Process during team meetings• Provide team members with information/data prior to the
meeting so individuals might prepare and problem solve in advance to facilitate the process during the meeting
• Spend equal/appropriate time on each step for each problem introduced (facilitator/timekeeper)
• Document discussion and record action plan with specifics clearly identified (recorder)
• Assign a case manager to monitor the process between meetings(facilitator/case manager)
Process during team meetings• Begin each meeting by reviewing the steps to the problem
solving process (facilitator)
• Ensure that all members have an opportunity to participate in meaningful and relevant way
• If using “brainstorming”, stick to the rules (facilitator/chair)
• Manage time effectively (timekeeper)
School-Based Infrastructure
• School-based leadership team (SBLT)• School-based coach
– Process Technical Assistance– Interpretation and Use of Data
• Master Calendar• Data Days• Evaluation Model
Roles and Responsibilities
Principal’s Role in Leading Implementation of RtI
• Models Problem-Solving Process• Expectation for Data-Based Decision Making• Scheduling “Data Days”• Schedule driven by student needs• Instructional/Intervention Support• Intervention “Sufficiency”• Communicating Student Outcomes• Celebrating and Communicating Success
Core Skill Areas for ALL Staff
• Data-Based Decision Making Process• Coaching/Consultation• Problem-Solving Process• Data Collection and Management• Instruction/Intervention Development, Support
and Evaluation• Intervention Fidelity• Staff Training• Effective Interpersonal Skills
Developing Infrastructure:Data Coaches & Facilitators
• Data Coaches should be able to:– Gather and organize Tier I and II data– Support small group and individual data collection– Assist in data interpretation– Facilitate data meetings for building and grade levels
• Facilitators:– Ensure pre-meeting preparation– Review steps in process and desired outcomes– Facilitate movement through steps– Facilitate consensus building– Set follow-up schedule/communication– Create evaluation criteria/protocol– Ensure parent involvement
PS/RtI Coaches
Primary role and responsibilities• Collect and manage data (school, grade and
classroom level)• Participate on school based PS team• Model effective group process using the 4 steps of
PS• Partner with the school principal to facilitate the
change initiatives• Collaborate with the district team to identify
technical assistance as needed
Table Top Activity
• How might roles changed as a result of implementing RtI?
• Do the resources exist to support a 3-tier service delivery model?
• What work must be done here?
Problem Solving Process
EvaluateResponse to
Intervention (RtI)
Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that
Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan
Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior
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
4. Response to Intervention (RtI)• Frequently collected data• Type of Response- good, questionable, poor
REPLACEMENT BEHAVIORS
• 90% of the students in first grade will demonstrate reading fluency at district benchmarks by January 15th of each year.
• School-wide Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) will be at or below the _______ level monthly.
• 75% of ELL students receiving Tier 2 services will achieve district level benchmarks in fluency.
Data Required for Problem Identification
• Replacement Behavior• Current Level of Functioning• Benchmark/Desired Level• Peer Performance• GAP Analysis
Problem ID Review
Student(s)
Benchmark
Peers
Problem ID Review
Student(s)
Benchmark
Peers
Problem ID Review
Student(s)
Benchmark
Peers
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 1
• Identify the number and names of students who are in core instruction 100% of the time.
• Identify the number and names of students who receive supplemental instruction.
• Identify the number and names of students who receive intensive instruction.
• Calculate the % of students who receive only Tier 1, core instruction.– Is this at, above or below 80%?
• Same for Tiers 2 and 3?– What does the distribution look like? A triangle, a rectangle?
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 2
• What % of Tier 1 students made proficiency?• What % of Tier 2 students made proficiency?• What % of Tier 3 students made proficiency?• What was the overall % of students who made
proficiency?• Calculate by disaggregated groups.
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 3
• By disaggregated groups, plot the % of students who made proficiency for the past 5 years.
• Calculate the % of average growth per year for each group.– % proficient in year 5 minus % proficient in year 1
divided by 5=average rate of increase in % of students making proficiency
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 4
• Are you happy with:– % of students in core who are proficient?– Same for each of the other Tiers.
• % of students in the three Tiers?
• Given that the national increase in % of students who move to proficiency is about 7%, how are you doing with the rate over the past years and what does this information mean to you for the next 5 years?– In 2014, 95% of students should be proficient
Tier I: Oral Reading Fluency• What is the problem?
The core effectiveness for oral reading fluency in first grade is 65.9%.
Why is it occurring?In first grade, students lack access to effective instruction because they are tardy and miss approximately 1/3 of the 90 minute reading block.
If the first grade reading block is moved from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., then the core effectiveness for first grade will increase.
• What are we going to do about it?First Grade reading block will be changed from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for the 08-09 school term.
• Did the group respond to the intervention and was it positive, questionable or poor?
West DeFuniak Elementary
65.9%
27.9%
6.4%
85.4%
10.4%
4.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 1st Grade Total (DIBELS 3) 08-09 2nd Grade Total (DIBELS 1)
West DeFuniak Elementary SchoolComparison of 07-08 First Grade to 08-09 Second Grade
Instructional Level by Ethnicity
Intial Strategic Intensive
Pre-Interventioncore effectivenessdata
Post-Interventioncore effectivenessdata
Ethnicity within First Grade
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
42.2%
47.4%
10.6%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
50.0%
35.8%
14.3%
67.3%
27.3%
5.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 AmericanIndian (1st)
07-08 Asian-Islander(1st)
07-08 Black (1st) 07-08 Hispanic (1st) 07-08 Multi-Racial(1st)
07-08 White
2007-2008 First Grade DIBELS, Assessment 3 Instructional Level
Intial Strategic Intensive
Pre-Intervention: 8:00 a.m. CORE reading block
Oral Reading Fluency byEthnic Groups within Second Grade
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
64.8%
29.5%
5.9%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
90.0%
0.0%
10.0%
90.0%
7.2%
2.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
08-09 American Indian(2nd)
08-09 Black (2nd) 08-09 Hispanic (2nd) 08-09 Multi-Racial (2nd) 08-09 White (2nd)
2007-2008 First Grade DIBELS, Assessment 3 Instructional Level
Intial Strategic Intensive
Pre-Intervention: 8:00 a.m. CORE reading block
Tier I: Oral Reading FluencyWhat is the problem?The core curriculum is ineffective for Low SES students (68.2%)
Why is it occurring?Because visual presentation of each student’s progress is lacking, the student is unaware of where his/her progress falls on a weekly basis. (If students monitor their own progress and can visualize their performance, their oral reading fluency will increase.
What are we going to do about it?At the beginning of the 08-09 school year, students are provided with a simple graph and are asked to monitor their own progress on weekly oral reading fluency probes.
Did the group respond to the intervention and was it positive, questionable or poor?
Freeport Elementary School
68.2%
14.5%
17.4%
90.2%
8.5%1.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 Low SES (K) 08-09 Low SES (1st)
Freeport Elementary School Low Socio-Economic Status
Instructional Level
Intial Strategic Intensive
76.3%
10.9%
12.9%
91.9%
6.4%1.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 Kindergarten Total (DIBELS 3) 08-09 1st Grade Total (DIBELS 1)
Freeport Elementary SchoolComparison of 07-08 Kindergarten to 08-09 First Grade
Instructional Level by Ethnicity
Intial Strategic Intensive
Pre-Interventioncore effectivenessdata
Post-Interventioncore effectivenessdata
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
66.7%
25.0%
8.4%
75.0%
0.0%
25.0%
77.0%
10.3%
12.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 Asian-Islander (K) 07-08 Black (K) 07-08 Hispanic (K) 07-08 Multi-Racial (K) 07-08 White (K)
Freeport Elementary School 07-08 Kindergarten (Assessment 3)
Instructional Level by Ethnicity
Intial Strategic Intensive
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
90.6%
8.3%
1.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
08-09 Asian-Islander (1st) 08-09 Black (1st) 08-09 Hispanic (1st) 08-09 Multi-Racial (1st) 08-09 White (1st)
Freeport Elementary School 08-09 First Grade
Instructional Level by Ethnicity
Intial Strategic Intensive
Table Top Activity
• What are the strengths of your existing problem-solving process
• What are areas that require improvement?
Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?
• Positive Response– Gap is closing
– Can extrapolate point at which target student(s) will “come in range” of target--even if this is long range
– Level of “risk” lowers over time
• Questionable Response– Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still
widening
– Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
• Poor Response– Gap continues to widen with no change in rate
Performance
Time
Positive Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Observed Trajectory
Performance
Time
Questionable Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Observed Trajectory
Performance
Time
Poor Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Observed Trajectory
Performance
Time
Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory
Observed Trajectory
Positive
Questionable
Poor
Decision Rules:Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions
• Positive– Continue intervention with current goal– Continue intervention with goal increased– Fade intervention to determine if student(s) have
acquired functional independence
Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions
• Questionable– Was intervention implemented as intended?
• If no - employ strategies to increase implementation integrity
• If yes -– Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of
time and assess impact. – If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to
problem solving
Decision Rules:Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions
• Poor– Was intervention implemented as intended?
• If no - employ strategies in increase implementation integrity
• If yes -– Is intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis?
(Intervention Design)– Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis)– Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification)
Table Top Activity
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the method you currently use for decision rules?
Assessing Implementation and Fidelity
• Level of implementation– SAPSI
• Level of Fidelity– Integrity Measures
Findings• Consistent increases in indicators of:
– Consensus– Infrastructure– Implementation of PS/RtI
• Strategic actions related to increases in targets– District commitment and support– SBLT planning and communication with staff
• Schools further along with reading than other content areas• Continued support needed
– Training– Coaching– Scaffolding of process
AssessingImplementation Fidelity
• Observation Checklists
• Permanent Product Checklists
Intervention Fidelity Strategies
• Tier 1– Principal Reading Walkthroughs assessing
presence/absence of effective instructional strategies
– Effective instruction checklist– Secondary core reading program checklists
• Tier 2/3– Intervention Support Practices
Effective Instruction (Foorman et al., 2003; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Arrasmith, 2003; & Rosenshine, 1986)
Characteristic Guiding Questions Well Met Somewhat Met
Not Met
Goals and Objectives Are the purpose and outcomes of instruction clearly evident in the lesson plans? Does the student understand the purpose for learning the skills and strategies taught?
Explicit Are directions clear, straightforward, unequivocal, without vagueness, need for implication, or ambiguity?
Systematic Are skills introduced in a specific and logical order, easier to more complex? Do the lesson activities support the sequence of instruction? Is there frequent and cumulative review?
Scaffolding Is there explicit use of prompts, cues, examples and encouragements to support the student? Are skills broken down into manageable steps when necessary?
Corrective Feedback Does the teacher provide students with corrective instruction offered during instruction and practice as necessary?
Modeling Are the skills and strategies included in instruction clearly demonstrated for the student?
Guided Practice Do students have sufficient opportunities to practice new skills and strategies with teacher present to provide support?
Independent Application Do students have sufficient opportunities to practice new skills independently?
Pacing Is the teacher familiar enough with the lesson to present it in an engaging manner? Does the pace allow for frequent student response? Does the pace maximize instructional time, leaving no down-time?
Instructional Routine Are the instructional formats consistent from lesson to lesson?
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
Intervention Support
• Pre-meeting– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Determine logistics
• First 2 weeks– 2-3 meetings/week– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Revise, if necessary
Intervention Support• Second Two Weeks
– Meet twice each week
• Following weeks– Meet at least weekly– Review data– Review steps– Discuss Revisions
• Approaching benchmark– Review data– Schedule for intervention fading– Review data
Table Top Activity
• How is instruction/intervention fidelity ensured in your building/district?
• How are you documenting service delivery in Tiers 2 and 3?
Response to Intervention:Implementing Tiers I, II and III
TIER I: Core, UniversalAcademic and Behavior
74
GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels
Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students.Tier I: Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction.Tier I: Begins with clear goals:1.What exactly do we expect all students to learn ?2.How will we know if and when they’ve learned it?3.How you we respond when some students don’t learn?4.How will we respond when some students have already learned?
Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and
viable core curriculum
75
Tier I
Key Questions– How effective are school-wide academic and behavior
programs?– How well are Tier I instruction/interventions
implemented?
76
Tier I• Focus of School-based Intervention Team
– Identify common behavioral issues through school-wide data analysis
– Implement school-wide procedures, practices, & supports
• Interventions - school-wide/classroom– Positive behavior supports– Social-emotional learning curriculum– School-wide discipline program
What does core instruction look like for reading?
K-5– 90 minute reading block
• Comprehensive reading program is the central tool for instruction.• Explicit, systematic, and differentiated instruction is provided.• In-class grouping strategies are in use, including small group instruction as
appropriate to meet student needs. • Active student engagement occurs in a variety of reading-based activities,
which connect to the essential components of reading and academic goals.
• Effective classroom management and high levels of time on task are evident.
6-12– Content area courses in which the reading content standards are addressed
for all students including:• Middle School Developmental Reading• English/Language Arts• Other core areas such as science, social studies, and math
What strategies exist to differentiate instruction for K-5 students in Tier 1?
• Differentiate in small, flexible reading groups – Use data to form groups based on skills to be taught
(comprehension, phonics, etc.)– Ensure that groups are flexible – Determine a schedule to rotate children through
groups/centers– Ensure that students with the most intensive needs meet
in the teacher-led center everyday• Targeted and deliberate independent reading
practice that utilizes relevant practice, extension, and production opportunities
What data can be collected to evaluate the impact of core instruction?
• Progress monitoring assessments three times a year (Benchmarking)
• Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM)• Core Reading Program Unit Tests / Curriculum-
based assessments• Outcome measures (SAT-10 and State Tests) to
make decisions about student placement for the following year
What Does Core Instruction Look Like for Behavior?
• School-wide Positive Behavior Support• School-wide social skills/character skill
education (e.g., Boys Town)• School-Home collaboration and partnerships• Active student engagement in promoting a
prosocial environment (e.g., bully prevention)• School-wide discipline plan that can be
explained by both staff and students
81
Sources of Data
• Academic performance• Discipline data- Office discipline referrals (ODR)• Records• Referral history • Observation• PBS benchmark assessment• School climate surveys• Attendance data
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
Table Top Activity
• Do you believe that your Tier 1 instruction (academic and behavior) contains the critical elements of an RtI model?
• What do you believe you must do to strengthen Tier 1?
TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted
84
Tier II For approx. 20% of students
Core +
Supplemental
…to achieve benchmarksTier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards).1.Where are the students performing now?2.Where do we want them to be?3.How long do we have to get them there?4.How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there?5.What resources will move them at that rate?
85
Tier II
Key Questions – Which students need targeted interventions?– How effective are targeted interventions?– How are targeted interventions linked to Tier I?– How well are Tier II interventions implemented?
86
Tier II• Focus of School-based Intervention Team
– Identifying students needing targeted interventions
– Developing/Implementing interventions that address student needs
• Interventions – small group – targeted group interventions
Academic Calendars andSchool Schedules
Academic Calendars
• SBLT Meetings• Grade-Level Meetings• Data Days
– Minimum of 3 per year• Professional Development and Support• Outcome Sharing Events
– Communication and Celebration
Schedules
• Maximize academic engaged time in critical areas
• Reflect needs of students• Maximize use of all staff• Ensure time allocated for Tiers 1, 2 and 3• Provide meeting time for tier integration work
Example of Grade Level Schedule
Resources to Assist with Scheduling Reading Intervention
Found at www.fcrr.org/Interventions
• Teaching All Students to Read: Practices from Reading First Schools with Strong Intervention Outcomes: Summary and Complete Documents available
– Principal’s Action Plan Outline for Building a Successful School-Wide Intervention Program
• Intensive Reading Interventions for Struggling Readers in Early Elementary School: A Principal’s Guide
– A Principal’s Guide to Intensive Reading Interventions for Struggling Readings in Reading First Schools: A Brochure
Table Top Activity
• How could you modify schedules to incorporate time for Tier 2 and 3 activities?
What do we know about the characteristics of effective interventions?
• They always increase the intensity of instruction - they accelerate learning
They always provide many more opportunities for re-teaching, review, and practice
They are focused carefully on the most essential learning needs of the students.
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
3 Fs + 1 S + Data + PD = Effective & Powerful Instruction
• Frequency and duration of meeting in small groups – every day, etc.
• Focus of instruction (the What) – work in vocabulary, phonics, comprehension, etc.
• Format of lesson (the How) – determining the lesson structure and the level of scaffolding, modeling, explicitness, etc.
• Size of instructional group – 3, 6, or 8 students, etc.
• Use data to help determine the 3 Fs and 1 S (the Why)
• Provide professional development in the use of data and in the 3 Fs and 1 S
Integrating the Tiers
Tier Functions/Integration
• How the Tiers work
• Time aggregation
• Tier integration
How the Tiers Work• Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or
behavioral• Greater the tier, greater support and “severity”• Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that
results in a positive response to intervention• Continue until student strengthens response significantly• Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level)• Determine the relationship between sustained growth and sustained
support.
Time Aggregation
• Tier 2 and 3 in addition to Tier 1
• Tier 3 time equal to or greater than Tiers 1 + 2– Alternative curriculum
• Time of core instruction determines Tiers 2 and 3
Instructional Integration
• Focus of Tiers 2 and 3 is specialized instructional strategies, time and focus of instruction
• Application of instructional strategies should include application to core instructional materials and content
• Single intervention plan with focus, activities and content contributed by each provider
• Agreement on progress monitoring level and content (Should be Tier 1)
Table Top Case Study
• 5th grade student• Reading Level: beginning 2nd grade in fluency,
end of 4th in listening comprehension, beginning 3rd in reading comprehension. Vocabulary at mid-4th grade level.
• Receiving services through SLD program and Title I Reading
Progress Monitoring
Tier 2
Van R. Butler
• What is the Problem?Core is effective for fluency. Students needing Tier II services for fluency (7) and 24 were
identified with reading comprehension problems.
• Why is it occurring?Fluency: Students need additional exposure to phonemic awareness strategies.
RC: Students need additional time practicing comprehension strategies.
• What are we going to do about it?Fluency: Students will be provided Great Leaps strategies 3 days per week for 20 minutes
per day.RC: Implementation of new reading series, emphasizing the big 5 for reading
comprehension. Tier II services include CORE plus 20 minutes of practice in the supplemental materials workbook
• The Response to the intervention
86.3%
8.7%
5.2%
94.2%
4.3%1.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 1st Grade Total (DIBELS 3) 08-09 2nd Grade Total (DIBELS 1)
Van R. Butler Elementary School Comparison of 07-08 First Grade to 08-09 Second Grade
Instructional Level
Intial Strategic Intensive
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
80.0%
20.0%
0.0%
85.4%
10.2%
4.5%
80.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 Asian-Islander(1st)
07-08 Black (1st) 07-08 Hispanic (1st) 07-08 Multi-Racial(1st)
07-08 White 07-08 Unreported
Van R. Butler Elementary School 07-08 First Grade
Instructional Level by Ethnicity
Intial Strategic Intensive
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0.0%
95.3%
3.6%1.3%
78.6%
14.3%
7.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 Asian-Islander(2nd)
08-09 Black (2nd) 08-09 Hispanic (2nd) 08-09 Multi-Racial(2nd)
08-09 White (2nd) 08-09 Unreported(14)
Van R. Butler Elementary School 08-09 Second Grade
Instructional Level by Ethnicity
Intial Strategic Intensive
87.0%
13.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
07-08 Low SES (1st) 08-09 Low SES (2nd)
Van R. Butler Elementary School Low Socio-Economic Status
Instructional Level
Intial Strategic Intensive
TIER III: Intensive, Individualized
111
Tier III For Approx 5% of Students
Core
+Supplemental
+Intensive Individual Instruction
…to achieve benchmarks
1.Where is the student performing now?2.Where do we want him to be?3.How long do we have to get him there?4.What supports has he received?5.What resources will move him at that rate?
Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals.
112
Tier III
Key Questions– What specific interventions are needed at Tier III?
Increased intensity of Tier II intervention? Different, individualized intervention?
– How well are Tier III interventions implemented? – What is the student’s response to evidence-based
interventions?
113
Tier III
• Focus of School-based Intervention Team– Identify individual academic and behavioral issues
through data analysis– Develop intensive individual interventions & supports– Ensure that these interventions and supports are linked
to core instruction– Assess integrity and intensity of interventions
114
Tier III: Problem-solving protocol
• Identify target & replacement behavior• Identify peer group for comparison
– Collect baseline & progress monitoring data (frequency, duration)– Gap analysis - compare student to peer group and expectation
• Determine function of the behavior (FBA)• Develop/Implement interventions based on FBA (BIP)• Monitor/Evaluate/Modify interventions based on data
– Document response to intervention – Problem solving continues based on response to intervention
Tier 3 Decisions
• GAP?
• Rate??
• Independent Functioning?– Fade Intervention to Supplemental Level– Evaluate Rate
Ways that instruction must be made more powerful for students “at-risk” for reading difficulties.
More instructional time
More powerful instruction involves:
Smaller instructional groups
Clearer and more detailed explanations
More systematic instructional sequences
More extensive opportunities for guided practice
More opportunities for error correction and feedback
More precisely targeted at right level
resources
skill
What are the logistics of Tier 3 instruction?
– Specific place and time set aside on the schedule (daily)– Who will provide it? (classroom teacher or outside support
– Reading specialist, ESE, SLP, etc.)– Materials/how will the provider access them?– Common planning time established between the two
providers, if applicable– Establishing guidelines for when to evaluate the
effectiveness of instruction and guidelines to determine what is a “good” response
Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM)
K-2 – all of the same TDI tasks– ORF in grades 1 and 23-12 – ORF at grades 3-5– MAZE at grades K-12– Informal toolkit with:
• Instructional Level reading comprehension passages & passage-specific Question & Response templates
• Multiple Lexiled passages for oral reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension
• Phonics Inventory• Sight Word Inventory• Instructional Implications of Word Analysis Task