Transcript Wisconsin SLD Rule: Overview and Discussion of Challenges

Best Practices for Aligning Multitier
– Multilevel Systems of Support with
the WI SLD Rule Changes
John Humphries, NCSP- Dodgeville School District and
Ed O’Connor, Ph.D
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
1
Introduction Overview
Process and Plan
• Questions-Parking Lot – Write on Post-its
• Cell Phones
• Starting & Ending Times
• Agenda
Setting the Stage
Disclaimer
History
2
7/16/2015
(c) Midwest Instructional Leadership
Council
3
Overview/Learning Objectives
• Understand system structures necessary to
support College and Career Readiness for All
• Assess local status in establishing RtI/MTSS
infrastructure and implementation routines
• Understand the role of school culture and
educator beliefs for supporting paradigm shift
• Observe discuss concrete examples of Multitiered Systems of Support
• Recognize and understand the WI SLD Rule
requirements
• Practice decision-making using the new SLD rule
using case study examples
4
Essential Concepts and Vocab
• Worksheet Activity
5
We Don’t Have Time to Think
Here is Edward Bear, coming
downstairs now, bump, bump,
bump on the back of his head
behind Christopher Robin. It is,
as far as he knows, the only way
of coming downstairs. He feels
that there really is another way…
If only he could stop bumping for
a moment and think of it.
From Winnie-the-Pooh
6
Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional
Leadership Council
7
Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional
Leadership Council
8
Advanced Organizer Questions
• What do staff already know and do?
– How do we know/How can we find out?
• What general information and support will
staff likely need?
• Who will communicate and support this
learning?
• When will this occur?
• How will we assess the outcomes?
9
MTSS SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS
10
Problem with System? or Need for Interventions?
11
RtI and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
• Wisconsin uses Multi-Level Systems of Support
• MTSS has replaced RtI as the overarching term
for tiered models in national literature
• Emphasis is on the entire “System” and
improving outcomes for ALL students
• RtI is a quantifiable outcome
– Can be used for SLD Identification
– Must be used for SLD WI starting on 12/1/2013
12
Data from Successful Schools
Outcomes Achieved in High Quality
MTSS Systems in the Nation,
and right here in Wisconsin
Recent Research on RtI Effectiveness
• More children demonstrating proficient skills on state
accountability tests
(Heartland, 2004; Sornson, Frost, & Burns, 2005; VanDerHeyden
&Burns, 2005)
• Improved reading skills among children identified as atrisk for reading failure
(Marston et al., 2003; Tilly, 2003)
• More accurate and equitable identification of students in
need of special education
(VanDerHeyden et al., 2003; VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005)
• Fewer students being placed into special education
(Burns et al., 2005; Sornson et al., 2005; VanDerHeyden et al.,
2007)
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
14
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
15
Monona Grove: % Special Ed. MGSD End of Year
15.00%
14.00%
13.69%
13.00%
13.01%
12.41%
12.00%
11.51% 11.66%
11.00%
11.00%
10.00%
% Special Ed. Monona
Grove
9.80%
9.00%
8.80%
8.20%
8.00%
7.90%
7.00%
*
6.00%
5.00%
2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 201002 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
16
Third Grade Reading Test:
Percent Proficient & Advanced
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
1998
January 18, 2011
1999
2000
2001
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
2002
2003
2004
17
Box and Whisker Plots Explained
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
18
Cross -Year Box Plots
Kindergarten – Phonemic Awareness
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
19
Cross -Year Box Plots
First Grade Alphabetic Principal (Decoding)
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
20
Cross -Year Box Plots
Second Grade Oral Reading Fluency
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
21
Marshall School District
2008-2009
% of Grade Level Moved from Minimal to Basic/Basic to Proficient
• Progress of
underachieving
students on the
WKCE-CRT
• Interventions are
helping to close
the achievement
gap
12%
10%
8%
Reading
Math
6%
4%
• Data courtesy of
Lori Mueller
January 18, 2011
2%
0%
Midwest
Instructional Leadership Council
4th Grade
6th Grade
(miLc) 5th Grade
7th Grade
8th Grade
22
School District of Monroe
4th Grade WKCE Proficient/Advanced: Math
(Data courtesy of Joe Monroe)
January 18, 2011
Midwest Instructional Leadership Council
(miLc)
23
SCRED OUTCOMES
• SCRED has been implementing all three
parts of the RTI model for the past 15 years.
• Up until the 2005-06 school year, we have
not used RTI to determine special education
eligibility due to conflict with current State
Law.
• Slides courtesy of Kim Gibbons, Ph D
Percent of Students Reaching Tier 1 Targets: GOM Reading
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
2008-09
50%
1995-96
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1W 1S
2F 2W 2S
3F 3W 3S
4F 4W 4S
5F 5W 5S
6F 6W 6S
7F 7W 7S
8F 8W 8S
RtI Works for Behavior Too!
2005-2006
2006-2007
60
54
50
38
30
30
31
30
30
24
20
10
17
10
8
16
32
29
26
26
18
16
6
Month
May
April
March
February
January
December
November
October
September
0
August
Number of ODRs
40
Connecting
MTSS and SLD
John Humphries, NCSP
Director/Psychologist
Dodgeville School District
27
28
July 16, 2015
Main Theme
 RtI/MTSS
has been shown to raise student
achievement
 You need to use RtI to evaluate SLD
 So…implement RtI
 Seems
simple, right? Maybe it is!
 But there are a lot of moving parts and
even some conflicting messages.
29
August, 2013
Background/Challenges




First, “RtI is not required:”
“Although districts are encouraged to fully
implement a RtI framework, RtI, as articulated
by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI),
is not required.”
WI-RtI Brief: Specific Learning Disabilities Rule Implementation
and RtI Some Clarifications
Downloaded May 14, 2013
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
30
July 16, 2015
Background/Challenges
 What





is RtI “as articulated by DPI?”
a school-wide approach
addresses the needs of all students
integrates assessment and supports
within a multi-level system
to enhance student achievement and
behavior
While this is not required… it seems clearly to
be a good idea!
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
31
July 16, 2015
You need to measure this:








The child does not make sufficient progress
to meet state-approved standards
in one or more of the eight areas of SLD
when using a process based on
the child’s response
to intensive scientific, research-based or
evidence-based interventions.
Isn’t RtI/MTSS going to support this?
PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a. (Line 70-72)
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
32
July 16, 2015
States Must Permit RtI!


IDEA Regulations Q & A (p. 46647) state:
“The Act requires that LEAs be permitted to
use a process that determines if a child
responds to research-based interventions.
Further, there is an evidence base to support
the use of RtI models to identify children with
SLD on a wide scale, including…several largescale implementations in
Iowa…Minneapolis…(and) applications of the
STEEP model in Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Arizona.”
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
33
July 16, 2015
Background/Challenges
 It
sure sounds like RtI/MTSS, as discussed in
the education literature, and deployed as
a system framework is best practice to
provide the system for effective
identification of students with SLD using
the WI rule.
 Where
does that leave us?
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
34
July 16, 2015
Here’s where we stand
 We
need to use RtI data to evaluate a
specific learning disability.
 Three basic pieces are required:




A referral process
A problem-solving process to discuss the
data, select and plan interventions
Interventions
Progress Monitoring
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
35
July 16, 2015
Our Discussions Today
 Today’s
workshop is about doing MTSS/RtI
“the right way.” To us, this means that we
talk about those systems and approaches
with the strongest research and
demonstration data.
 The closer we adhere to these models,
the more likely we are to be successful
ourselves. The more we deviate from
these models, the more risk we take. Be
careful!
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
36
July 16, 2015
Districts in WI

Seem to be in widely divergent situations.




Some are moving forward quickly, leveraging
the state report cards, statewide vouchers, and
the SLD rule to implement MTSS/RtI
Others seem to be stuck using old models
Data are starting to accumulate, so keep an
eye on your yours to make changes where
you can.
Nothing changes minds like information
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
MTSS: Begins With System Performance
If:
• System structures and processes are not optimized,
many will not reach benchmarks…
Then:
• Curriculum casualties will be referred for supplemental
services and/or special education
• Resources will be insufficient
• Supplemental and intensive responses will be
overwhelmed and ineffective
• Student learning will not improve
• Teachers will be frustrated
• Parents will be frustrated
• Politicians will write a law to require better outcomes
37
MTSS: Basic Premises
• Effective Core Instruction is a non-negotiable
• Student outcomes reflect the quality and match of
instruction to student need
• Focus of all actions is on “controllable variables”
• Cannot do “more” in existing time frame – work
differently
• Special education represents a level of resources and
expertise in the educational system not a label or a
place
38
Focus on Controllable Variables
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Un-Controllable
Poverty
Parents
Motivation
Previous learning
experiences
Previous teachers
Language
background
Disability status
Financial Resources
Controllable
• Instruction
– Evidence-based
practices
– Rehearsal
• Curriculum
– Content
• Environment
– Time
Schedule
Structure
Group size
39
MTSS
• MTSS is the practice of
– (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention
matched to student needs
– (2) using data about learning rate over time and level
of performance
– (3) using data to guide educational decisions
• Problem-solving is the process that is used to
develop and assess instruction/interventions
40
In Other Words…….
“The systematic use of assessment
data to most efficiently allocate
resources in order to enhance
learning for all children”
(Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006)
41
MTSS: Who Is Responsible?
General
Education
Special
Education
42
Why MTSS?
• Moves the focus of attention to student progress not
student labels
• Focus on achieving benchmarks, regardless of
student needs or background
•Scarce available resources - efficiency
•Represents systemic transformation
•Responsive to best practice and national direction
43
Core Practices of MTSS
• Universal screening of academics and behavior
• Multiple tiers of increasingly intense interventions
• Use of evidenced-based interventions
• Continuous monitoring of student performance
• Evaluating student performance against system
identified benchmarks/ outcome assessment
44
Core Principles of MTSS
•
•
•
•
Focus on “Results” not process
Intervene early & focus on Prevention
Insist on greater Parental Involvement
Integrate expertise from both general and
special education
• Make only Data-Based decisions
• Interventions must be Evidenced-Based
• Be Accountable, Efficient, and Flexible
45
MTSS: A Framework for All Initiatives
• MTSS is a framework for student improvement
• Other initiatives, if focused on the same outcome, will
fit this framework (PBIS, PLC)
• All staff collect and use data to make instructional
decisions for student improvement
• Services for struggling students are coordinated/
integrated so that interventions are immediate
46
The VISION: To Provide Effective Interventions to Meet the Needs of ALL
Students Through Early and Scientifically Based Interventions Through Careful
Systems Planning
ACADEMIC SYSTEMS
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS
3
Tier Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment - based
• High intensity
• Of longer duration
2
Tier Targeted Group Interventions
• Some students (at-risk)
• High efficiency
• Rapid response
3
5%
5%
15%
15%
2
Tier Targeted Group Interventions
• Some students (at-risk)
• High efficiency
• Rapid response
1
Tier Core Effective Instruction
• All students
• Preventive, proactive
Tier Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment - based
• Intense, durable procedures
1
80%
80%
STUDENTS
Tier Core Effective Instruction
• All settings, All students
• Preventive, proactive
47
Why a Pyramid?
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
An aerial viewemphasizing that
all students need a
strong foundation in
core instruction and
that all students are
part of the same
educational
system.
48
The Bow and the Target
MTSS AND COMMON CORE STATE
STANDARDS
49
MTSS and CCSS
MTSS
• How schools support
students to reach CCSS
• A framework for
educational practice
• Gives us a process for
problem solving and action
planning
• Requires specific
assessment routines
CCSS
• What students need to
know and be able to do
• A summary of learning
objectives
• Gives us a reference point
against which to judge
outcomes
• Requires specific alignment
routines
50
CORE INSTRUCTION for ALL
ALL Students will be College and Career ready
Common Core State Standards
Data and Assessment Decision-Making
Next Generation Assessments
Summative Assessments
Explore/Plan/ACT
Formative Assessments
MAP
Assessment Results Inform Instruction
Instruction
What?
CCRS
CCSS
Learning Objectives
21st Century Skills
Behavior
How?
Modeling
Guided Practice
Scaffolding
Formative Assessment
Active Participation
Supplemental
Intense
51
PROBLEM SOLVING
52
Problem Solving
Is
• A systematic strategy for using
data about current status and
research to make decisions/plans.
• Applied at all levels to all
decisions in highly effective
schools
• A self-correcting process that can
be used by all staff
• A routine that requires clear and
credible outcome targets for all
that are measured quantitatively
on a routine basis.
Is Not
• Using professional judgment and
experience alone to make
decision/plans for improvement.
• A team you meet with to get
permission to refer a student for
a special education referral
• Dependent upon individual
personalities for sustainability
• A routine that has individually
determined targets based upon
staff judgments of what can be
expected and measured only by
qualitative observations.
53
Systematic Planning &
Problem-Solving
4-Step Process
1. Define
What do we want students to know
and be able to do?
2. Analyze
Why is this not occurring?
3. Implement
What are we going to do about it?
8-Step Process
1. Set a goal and identify how you will
measure that goal.
2. Identify resources and obstacles to
attaining that goal.
3. Prioritize obstacle and select one
obstacle for action planning.
4. Identify strategies to eliminate or
reduce the obstacle.
5. Develop action plan to implement
strategies.
6. Develop follow-up plan.
4. Evaluate
Is it working?
7. Evaluate impact of the action plan.
8. Evaluate progress on original goal.
54
1. Set a Goal, and Identify
How to Measure that Goal
8. Evaluate
if Goal in
#1 was
Achieved
Evaluate–
Is it working?
Define–
What do we
want students
to know and be
able to do?
2. Identify
Resources &
Barriers
7. Evaluate if
Barriers were
Eliminated
or Reduced
3. Prioritize
Barriers
Implement–
6. Develop
Follow-up Plan
What are we
going to do
about it?
5. Develop Action Plan
Analyze–
Why is this not
occurring?
4. Identify Strategies to
Eliminate or Reduce
Barriers
55
Implementation Considerations
CHALLENGES
56
Significant Obstacles Reported by Teachers
(rank ordered)
Insufficient Teacher Training
Lack of Intervention Resources
Lack of Resources – Instruction or progress
monitoring.
Lack of support/direction from state
Lack of resources benchmarking/assessment/data
management
Lack of support from district leadership
57
Significant Obstacles Observed
• Insufficient “core” instruction
• Over-focus on intervention
• Lack of sufficient support and training in “bestpractices”
• Culture of independence and professional
judgement
• Lack of support for data and assessment
• Insufficient Fidelity to Procedures
• Educator Beliefs
58
Role of Staff Beliefs
59
TEACHER BELIEFS
All Students Can Learn
Disagree
40%
Agree
60%
60
TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’t
Students with high incidence disabilities (e.g. LD) are capable
of achieving academic benmarks
40
40
33
35
30
Percentage who 25
agree with the 20
statement
15
10
5
0
First-year
1-4 years
Years of Experience
61
TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’t
Using data to determine effectiveness of
interventions is better than using
"teacher judgment"
Disagree
45%
Agree
55%
62
Reading CCRS/CCSS Requires K-12 Effort
K-12 PERSPECTIVE
63
64
When Students Are “Off Target”
• A cadre of interventions exist that the entire school is
knowledgeable about
• A single problem-solving process exists and the
implementation steps and skills are standardized
• Procedures exist to support intervention integrity and
to document the “dosage” of intervention provided
65
Interventions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Are NOT:
Are:
• Activities which are
In addition to core
intended to put students
instruction
into alternative settings
Consider alterable
where appropriate
variables first - time
interventions can occur
Begin at the Tier 1 level
• A designated period
Include strategies such as
everyday
differentiation
• A different setting or
Respond to student needs
location
as soon as identified as
not meeting benchmarks
Evidence-based
66
“Stop asking me if
we’re almost there;
we’re Nomads, for
crying out loud.”
It is about…….
CONTINUOUS School
Improvement….will
we ever be ‘there’?
Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional
Leadership Council
67
68
July 16, 2015
RtI/MTSS System Functions
 Let’s
walk through the research-based
model:



Screening
Instruction
Progress Monitoring
 As
we go along, comparing and
contrasting with MTSS/RtI Best Practices
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
An Evidence-Based MTSS/RTI Model
Step 2
Step 1
All Students at
a grade level
Universal
Screening
Fall
Winter Spring
Courtesy of Dave Tilley, Heartland AEA
Intensive
Support
Supplemental
Services
Step 3
Addl.
Diagnostic
Assessment
Instruction
Individual
Diagnostic
Individualized
Intensive
1-5%
5-10%
Group
Diagnostic
Small
Group
Differentiated
By Skill
Step 4
Results
Monitoring
weekly
2 times/month
Core
Instruction
80-90%
None
Continue
With
Core
Instruction
Guided by
Formative
Assessment
SUMMATIVE
•Grades
•Discipline
•AYP Measures
strong
Continue with
grade-level
lessons
Comprehension
assessment
strong
Teach vocabulary and
comprehension
weak
Example for Reading
Fluency
assessment
strong
weak
Word Recognition
assessment
weak
Teach fluency
strong
Grades K-3: Follow the chart from
bottom to top, from discrete skills to
broad abilities.
Grades 4-12: Follow the chart from
top to bottom, from broad abilities
to discrete skills.
Teach word
recognition
Phonics
(decoding)
assessment
strong
weak
Phonological
Awareness
assessment
Phonemic Awareness
Teach explicit
phonics
Adapted from: Diamond, L. & Thorsnes, B. (2008). Assessing reading multiple measures, 2nd edition.
Navato, CA: Consortium on Reading Excellence. Shown in WI RtI Center Progress Monitoring Toolkit.
weak
Teach blending,
segmenting sounds
71
A Changing Paradigm
From this






Problem is in the
student
Medical model
Assessment of
processing
Diagnosis and
placement
Accommodation and
modification
Dependence
To this

Problem is in the
instruction
Behavioral model
Assessment of skill
Instruction and effect
Acceleration

Independence




72
July 16, 2015
We Better Do MTSS Right…
 “If
an eligibility decision is delayed
because data needed by the IEP team
(were) not collected in a manner
consistent with the rule because the
evaluation was not properly conducted,
the LEA may be required to consider
whether compensatory services are
needed.”
 From DPI’s SLD/RtI FAQ
73
Leaving the Discrepancy
Model




There is clear evidence that traditional
methods were ineffective and frequently
overrepresented minorities
Research has shown that AptitudeAchievement Discrepancy determination did
not select “the right students.”
Rates of placement were increasing at the
same time that effects of Special Education
placement were being questioned
There was clear evidence that discrepancy
models were not being used consistently
Sunrise MTSS, Sunset Discrepancy
7/16/2015
Weissenburger and Humphries
December 1, 2013
74
75
July 16, 2015
Elements of Wisconsin’s Rule
 Line
Numbers and Implications as we go
 Definitions at beginning of rule
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
The Big Picture…
 The
IEP team may identify a child as
having a specific learning disability if both
of the following apply:
 Low Achievement: PI 11.36 (6) (c) 1 AND
 Insufficient Progress: PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2



Insufficient RtI, PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a
(Discrepancy was here as option)
lines 44, 46, 67, 69, and 93
Definition and Exclusions



“…a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes…”
Exclusions: “…does not include learning
problems that are primarily the result of visual,
hearing, motor disabilities, cognitive
disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural
factors, environmental, or economic
disadvantage…”
PI 11.36 (6) (a), [lines 30-37]
78
July 16, 2015
Eight Areas of SLD








Basic Reading
Reading Fluency
Reading Comprehension
Math Calculation
Math Problem Solving
Written Expression
Adequate PM
Tools and
Interventions
Oral Expression
Listening Comprehension
Not so much...
Refer to SLP
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
Child Find
Identifying students who should be evaluated
Child Find and Parental
Consent


“The LEA shall promptly request parental
consent to evaluate a child to determine if
the child needs special education and
related services if, prior to referral, the child
has not made adequate progress after an
appropriate period of time when provided
appropriate instruction in general education
settings, delivered by qualified personnel, or
whenever the child is referred for an
evaluation.”
PI 11.36 (6) (b), [lines 38-41]
Implications, [lines 38-41]




You should have a robust system to identify
students who are not making good progress
toward AYP goals and district benchmarks
“Screening Is Not Evaluation” and does not
require consent (§ 300.302)
Consent is, “to determine if the child needs
special education and related services…”
RtI data give you the impairment information
Child Find and Parental
Consent
 “The
LEA shall meet the timeframes under
s. 115.78 (3) (a), Stats., unless extended by
mutual written agreement of the child’s
parents and IEP team.”
 PI
11.36 (6) (b), [lines 41-43]
Implications, [lines 41-43]
 You
can get an extension for SLD but not
for any other area of potential disability.
 The
extension agreement is between the
parents and the IEP team, not the LEA or
LEA representative
What is a Specific
Learning Disability?
Unexpected underachievement
Low Achievement

Upon initial identification the child does not
achieve adequately for his or her age, or
meet state-approved grade-level standards
in one or more of the following eight areas of
potential specific learning disabilities when
provided with learning experiences and
instruction appropriate for the child’s age

PI 11.36 (6) (c) 1, [lines 46-51]
Implications, [lines 46-51]



Age or state-approved grade-level standards
“Upon initial evaluation” means required
once
A child may not be identified as having SLD if
there is no documentation of appropriate
instruction (federal regs discussion p. 46652)


This is not a rule-out, it’s a rule-in, a positive
responsibility of the IEP to document
If you cannot document that appropriate
instruction has occurred, you cannot find a
disability
Low Achievement

A child’s achievement is inadequate when
the child’s score, after intensive intervention,
on one or more assessments of achievement
is equal to or more than 1.25 standard
deviations below the mean in one or more of
the eight areas of potential specific learning
disabilities.
PI 11.36 (6) (c) 1, [lines 51-53]

You may use scores within 1 SEM (lines 63-66)

Implications, [lines 51-53 and
63-66]
 Remember,
DPI prefers subscales to
subtests
 1.25 SDs or more, below the mean
 For instance, scores of 81 and below
would qualify if SD=15
 Information Processing is Gone!
Testing for Low Achievement
 Assessments
used under this subdivision
shall be individually administered, normreferenced, valid, reliable, and diagnostic
of impairment in the area of potential
specific learning disabilities.
 PI
11.36 (6) (c) 1, [lines 54-55]
Big Caveats

If the child cannot attain valid and reliable
scores because of:







Test behavior
Language proficiency
Impairment
Absence of achievement tests for that age
Then you are not allowed to use these tests
You must document why, and use other
evidence
PI 11.36 (6) (c) 1, [lines 55-63]
IEP Team Membership
Two new roles
IEP Team Membership and
Roles
 In
addition to typical IEP team
membership, SLD IEPs must include:



 PI
A data analyst
An interventionist
A diagnostician
11.36 (6) (d) 3, [lines 130-143]
Data Analyst
 At
least one licensed person who is qualified to
assess data on individual rate of progress using a
psychometrically valid and reliable methodology. A
psychometrically valid and reliable methodology
relies on all data sources specified in par. (g).,
analyzing progress monitoring data that exhibit
adequate statistical accuracy for the purpose of
identification of insufficient progress as compared
to a national sample of same-age peers.
PI 11.36 (6) (d) 3. a, [lines 132-136]
94
July 16, 2015
Paragraph (g)



formal and informal assessment data
academic achievement and learning
behavior
standardized tests, error analysis, criterion
referenced measures, curriculum−based
assessments, pupil work samples, interviews,
systematic observations, analysis of the child’s
response to previous interventions, and
analysis of classroom expectations, and
curriculum
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
Implications/Definition [lines
132-136]
 (10)
“Rate of progress” during an
intervention means the slope of the trend
line using least squares regression on the
baseline and all subsequent data points
during each intervention.
 The data elements in (g) are broad
 Adequate statistical accuracy means
that you’ve done a good job with
progress monitoring.
“A national sample of sameage peers”
 We
do not want to compare to a school
sample because schools have differing
levels of achievement
 A national sample for rate of progress
gives us the most valid comparison group
 This means we need to be able to
accurately progress monitor in each of
the 8 areas of SLD
97
July 16, 2015
DPI’s Interpretation…
 …this
paragraph does not demand
comparison to a national sample of
same-age peers, only that the IEP team
must include someone capable of
interpreting psychometrically valid and
reliable data compared to a national
sample of same age peers…
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
98
July 16, 2015
Be Careful Here
 The
guidance available from DPI doesn’t
highlight these sections very clearly
 Paragraph
(g), using national norms, and
the data analyst role are critical
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
99
July 16, 2015
A Critical Issue
 Are
CBM measures required?
 What about other sources of information?


Running Records
“Benchmark Assessments”
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
100
July 16, 2015
A Better Question

Which assessment for which purposes:

CBM – Screening and Progress monitoring





Statistically reliable and valid
Efficient
Predictive validity
Not intended to provide deep diagnostic information
Running Records, IRI, etc…




Rich diagnostic information
High value for teachers
More time consuming
Not sensitive to small increments of change (won’t work
for progress monitoring)
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
101
July 16, 2015
An Unnecessary Diversion





Both types of assessments will be relevant for
different purposes.
CBM measures allow quantitative measurement of
status and growth
Running records and other similar tools for
observing applied skills allow for more detailed
analyses of instructional needs.
For the WI RtI rule we must provide quantitative
measurement of status and growth.
For students who don’t “respond” we will need to
analyze applied skills and this will require measures
beyond CBM.
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
102
July 16, 2015
Review Two Documents
 Why
CBMs are necessary for progress
monitoring
 Historical DPI document “DRAFT DATA
AVAILABILITY ACTIVITY:” Documenting
Progress Monitoring
 Not printed—See Google Drive
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
103
July 16, 2015
High Stakes Decisions in RtI
 Extra
Ppt you may enjoy;-)
 In Tier 2, PM tools need to tell you how
things are going—is it working?
 The result is one of three things:



Stay in Tier 2
Go up to Tier 3
Go back to Tier 1
 Making
a mistake causes serious problems
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
104
July 16, 2015
Back from the brink…
 The
Data Analyst role should be taken
very seriously and the statistics of progress
monitoring should be clearly understood
before you make high stakes decisions.
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
Interventionist

At least one licensed person who has
implemented scientific, research-based or
evidence-based, intensive interventions with
the referred pupil.

Implication: This person must attend the IEP
meeting, and should discuss alignment, etc.

PI 11.36 (6) (d) 3. b, [lines 137-138]
Diagnostician, Teacher, etc.
 At
least one licensed person who is
qualified to conduct individual diagnostic
evaluations
 The child’s teacher or one who could…
 Implications:
If a person fits more than one
role that is ok.
 PI
11.36 (6) (d) 3. c-d, [lines 139-143]
Systematic Observations
Lend reliability to our decisions
Two Observations
 By
an IEP Team member
 One in general education setting
 PI
11.36 (6) (e) 1-2c, [lines 144-162]
Observation During
Intervention

“…the IEP team shall use information from a
systematic observation of pupil behavior and
performance in the area or areas of potential
specific learning disability during intensive
intervention for that area, conducted by an
individual who is not responsible for
implementing the interventions with the
referred pupil.”

PI 11.36 (6) (e) 2. d, [lines 158-162]
Implications [lines 158-162]






You want to be sure the intervention is
implemented consistent with its design
This fits with the 80% fidelity rule
Use these data to document the need for
additional training, support, or coaching
This is not intended to be teacher evaluation
Develop clear protocols for intervention
implementation that allow easy rating
Cannot be completed by the interventionist
111
July 16, 2015
Important Notifications
 First,
we have to notify parents of change
to RtI use at least 10 days prior
 In Dodgeville we published it, even
though you could give it out with referral
 We’re also giving out flyers
 We used a little bit of DPI’s recommended
language, but…
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
112
July 16, 2015
Federal regulation § 300.311






“Specific documentation for the eligibility
determination” requires that if a child has
participated in RtI, the parents must be notified of:
The instructional strategies used
The student-centered data collected
Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning
The State’s policies regarding the amount and
nature of student performance data that would
be collected and the general education services
that would be provided
The parents’ right to request an evaluation.
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
113
July 16, 2015
Questions and RtI/SLD
 Next,
Ed will discuss Exclusionary Factors,
especially as they relate to MTSS/RtI
Systems



Appropriate Instruction in the area of
referral
Repeated Assessments of Achievement (i.e.
screening)
Essential Components of Reading
Instruction
Connecting MTSS/RtI and SLD
Reflection and Processing Time:
Planning and Preparation to Support WI
SLD Rule Implementation:
“SLD Rule Elements”
114
Return by TIME
LUNCH
115
Regrouping Activity
• Case Study Questions 1 & 2
116
Using RtI in SLD Evaluation
The WI SLD Rule
General Considerations
117
EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS
118
Must meet criteria for all three: insufficient progress, inadequate
classroom achievement, and no exclusionary factors
Insufficient
Progress
IMPAIRMENT?
NEED FOR
SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
Inadequate
Classroom
Achievement
119
Applying the Exclusionary Factors
How are the exclusionary factors applied to
determining SLD eligibility?
–The IEP team may NOT identify a
student as SLD if any of the exclusions
is the primary reason for inadequate
classroom achievement or insufficient
progress
120
Environmental,
Economic,
Cultural Factors
Lack of
Appropriate
Instruction
Other
Impairments
Limited
English
Proficiency
121
Exclusions
General Questions for IEP team consideration:
– Is the referred student a member of a relevant
subgroup?
– What is the academic progress (in the area of
student concern) of the subgroup compared to
ALL students at the grade or age level?
– Is the student unique relative to similar peers?
– Other impairments?
122
If Exclusionary Factors are Determined
to be Primary Cause of Learning Gaps:
• The problem is the result of factors outside of the
child.
• SLD is not an appropriate explanation, thus
labeling is more likely to cause harm than good.
• There still is an obligation in an MTSS system to
determine effective instruction/intervention
responses.
• Consideration of causal variables related to
exclusion may be important in selecting
intervention responses.
123
Environmental,
Economic, Cultural
Factors
Lack of
Appropriate
Instruction
Other
Impairments
Limited
English
Proficiency
124
Consideration of Socio-Economic
Factors
• Learning pattern similar to other students
experiencing similar socio-economic challenges?
• Learning needs related to a lack of opportunities
to learn?
• What contexts (e.g. health, nutrition, schedule,
safety mobility…) may be impacting learning?
• Under what conditions or in which contexts does
the student demonstrate better learning?
125
Environmental or Economic Disadvantage
Mobility
Family change
Attendance
Recent trauma
Did the student
move a lot or miss a
lot of school?
Is the concern a
localized learning
problem…or
something more?
126
Considering Ethnic, Racial, Cultural and
Familial Factors
• What pattern of performance compared to
similar peers?
• Are the materials and strategies used in
assessment free from cultural bias?
• Did interventions address cultural, racial,
ethnic or familial variables?
• Are the curriculum, instruction and general
climate respectful of the beliefs, customs and
traditions of the child and his/her family?
127
Environmental,
Economic,
Cultural Factors
Lack of
Appropriate
Instruction
Other
Impairments
Limited
English
Proficiency
128
IDEA Language
• §300.309(b): To ensure that underachievement in a child
suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due
to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the
group must consider, as part of the evaluation described
in §§ 300.304 through 300.306—
• (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the
referral process, the child was provided
appropriate instruction in regular education
settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and
• (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting
formal assessment of student progress during instruction,
which was provided to the child’s parents.
129
Repeated Assessments
• Repeated assessments of achievement
conducted at reasonable intervals, reflecting
formal monitoring of student progress during
the interventions.
• Information regarding the student’s progress
should be periodically provided to the
student’s parents.
130
Frequency of Repeated Assessments
• Repeated assessment information may come
from:
– Universal Screening
• Typically conducted 3 times a year
– Strategic intervention
• Typically progress monitored once a month
– Intense intervention ( tier 2)
• Typically progress monitored once a week
131
Exclusion: Lack of Appropriate Instruction
The IEP team may not identify a student as SLD if
the reason for inadequate classroom achievement
or insufficient progress is a lack of appropriate
instruction
– IEP team considers appropriate general education
instruction in the area(s) of concern
– No requirement to document appropriate instruction
in all 8 areas
– But, must document appropriate instruction in area
of potential disability
132
Exclusion: Lack of Appropriate
Instruction
• The IEP team shall consider data
demonstrating that prior to, or as a part of, an
evaluation, the child was provided appropriate
instruction in general education settings,
delivered by qualified personnel. Appropriate
instruction in reading shall include the
essential components of reading instruction as
defined in 20 USC 6368 (3).
133
NCLB Defines “Essential Components of
Reading Instruction”
Essential components of reading instruction:
– The term "essential components of reading
instruction" means explicit and systematic
instruction in - (A) phonemic awareness; (B)
phonics; (C) vocabulary development; (D) reading
fluency, including oral reading skills; and (E)
reading comprehension strategies.
(20 U. S. C. § 6368(3))
134
Exclusion: Lack of Appropriate Instruction
Use student specific information to verify that
appropriate instruction was provided, such as:
1. Core (universal) instruction provided regularly
2. Student attended school regularly to receive
instruction
3. Core instruction delivered according to design and
methodology by qualified personnel
4. Differentiated instruction in the core curriculum
was provided
135
Lack of Appropriate Instruction
Is there evidence that the student
received appropriate instruction in the
area of concern?
Core instruction
provided regularly?
Core instruction
delivered according to
design and methodology
by qualified personnel?
Differentiated
instruction in the core
curriculum was
provided?
136
Exclusion: Lack of Appropriate Instruction
To verify that appropriate instruction was provided,
IEP teams may choose to use grade level
information such as:
– WKCE participation and results
– District wide assessments aligned to standards
– Grade level common assessments
137
Evaluating Lack of Appropriate
Instruction
• This is an ongoing responsibility of the
Principal.
– Usually this is accomplished through routine data
analyses and reporting completed by the School
Based Leadership Team (SBLT)
• “Core” instruction is a most significant factor
contributing to learning outcomes
• Three components to be evaluated…
138
1. Achievement Level and Growth of
Other Similar Students
• All students
• Relevant subgroups to which the student
being evaluated belongs.
Lack of appropriate instruction is not likely the primary
factor leading to the learning concern if most students (e.g.
80% +) in the class and in relevant subgroups are achieving
and progressing at expected rates.
– “uniquely” low skills and rate of progress relative
to similar peers receiving the same instruction
139
Problem with System? or Need for Interventions?
140
The Same Logic Applies to
Interventions
• Are effective interventions in place for all
students?
• How are subgroups performing in those
interventions?
• Is there evidence that the referred student
received appropriate intervention? (Link SLD)
141
Tier 2 and Tier 3 Progress Monitoring
Data from Supplemental and Intensive
Instruction
• Effective intervention routines are
demonstrated when many similar students
receiving supplemental or intensive
interventions are progressing at a faster rate
than the student being evaluated.
142
Target:
43
72
Fall
Benchmark
45 students
05-06 66%
04-05
03-04
Winter
2nd grade
Benchmark
47 students
05-06 70%
42
61%
56%
04-05
03-04
90
Spring
Benchmark
05-06
04-05
03-04
69%
61%
68%
54%
Peggy N 43-71
Tom T 65-70
Strategic <43, >=26
6 students
9%
Intensive <26
17 students
25%
Total
Enrollment:
Strategic
10 students
15%
2
10
68
Strategic
Intensive
10 students
15%
143
Intensive
67
Credit: SCRED
Goal
70%
Examples of Report Language:
Documentation of Effective Instruction and Intervention
• John has received appropriate instruction in reading
throughout his four years at Lincoln Elementary School (K3). Since kindergarten, John’s teachers have used the SRA
Reading Mastery reading series, which uses explicit
instructional procedures to teach the “big ideas” in reading.
This research-based program has been successful in
bringing 80% of the current third graders to proficiency. All
of John's teachers have had extensive training with SRA.
Fidelity checks conducted by reading coaches and the
school principal indicate that the SRA program has been
used with a high degree of fidelity. (Documentation of the
fidelity checks are on file in the principal's office.)
144
(cont.)
• John has been provided with intensive reading interventions at tier 2
of Lincoln's three-tier model since September of 2008. He has been
provided with small-group interventions to address his difficulties in
phonemic awareness and decoding skills, using the Early Reading
Intervention (ERI) program (Scott Foresman). ERI has been identified
by the Florida Center for Reading Research as a research-based
practice, and has been shown to significantly increase the proficiency
of students at tiers 2 and 3 in Lincoln School. Fidelity checks
conducted by the district’s reading coordinator indicate that the
reading teachers who implemented the ERI program have done so with
a high degree of fidelity. (Documentation of the fidelity checks are on
file in the principal's office.)
145
Examples of Report Language:
Documentation of Repeated Measures of Assessment
• Since kindergarten, John has been assessed during the
universal screening in reading three times per year (fall,
winter, spring). Since his involvement with tier two
interventions this year, John's progress has been monitored
using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) on a weekly
basis. Results of both universal screening and progress
monitoring have been provided to his parents through
written reports and periodic parent conferences.
146
Historical DPI Document
• “DRAFT DATA AVAILABILITY ACTIVITY”
Documenting Appropriate Instruction
147
Environmental,
Economic,
Cultural Factors
Lack of
Appropriate
Instruction
Other
Impairments
Limited
English
Proficiency
148
Evaluating the Role of Limited English
Proficiency
• If an individual student’s performance does not fall
below the performance of peers with similar linguistic
backgrounds the student’s needs are not likely due to a
disability.
• Additional considerations
– Are the assessments being used free from cultural bias?
– Have assessments been administered in the language and
form most likely to yield accurate information about the
student’s skills?
– Did the interventions provided address language needs?
– What is the students performance on measures of
linguistic skill (BICS/CALP…)?
149
Environmental,
Economic,
Cultural Factors
Other
Impairments
Lack of
Appropriate
Instruction
Limited
English
Proficiency
150
Other Impairments
SLD can co-exist with some areas of
impairment
Cannot co-exist with cognitive disability
Primacy considerations
151
Reflection Time:
Partner Talk
1 min think
2 min talk
152
Think-Pair-Share
TASK: With your table partners discuss these
questions and be ready to share your ideas.
– Why is it important to consider exclusionary
factors throughout the SLD evaluation?
– How might consideration of these factors change
the IEP team meeting discussion?
– How might the IEP team document that there was
careful analysis of the possibility that one or more
exclusionary factors was the primary reason for
the learning problem?
153
OTHER GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
154
Standards for ALL (Type 1 & 2)
Intensive Interventions
• Used with individual or small groups
• Focused on single or small number of discrete
skills
• Include substantial number of instructional
minutes beyond what is provided to all
students
• Applied in a manner highly consistent with its
design, closely aligned to student need
• Culturally responsive
155
Additional Standards for Interventions
with Progress Monitoring
• Must meet standards for all intensive
Interventions
• “Type 2” ADDITIONAL features:
– Scientific research-based or evidence-based
– Closely aligned to individual learning needs (area of
concern)
– Implemented with adequate fidelity
• Consistent with design
• At least 80% of the recommended number of weeks,
sessions, minutes
– At least TWO interventions required for EACH area of
concern
156
Specific SLD Rule Requirements
Inadequate Achievement
Insufficient Progress
Need for Special Education
157
Inadequate Classroom
Achievement
158
Insufficient
Progress
IMPAIRMENT?
NEED FOR
SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
Inadequate
Classroom
Achievement
159
Classroom Achievement is Inadequate If…
• Achievement test administered AFTER intensive
intervention
• Achievement test used that is technically adequate
–
–
–
–
Individually administered
Norm referenced
Valid and reliable
Diagnostic of impairment in the area of potential SLD
• Student’s standard score is 1.25 Standard Deviations
below the mean or lower in one or more of 8 areas
160
Individually Administered
Achievement Test
• 1.25 SD cut score on reliable/valid test
• Must be administered after intensive
intervention
• Same cut score standard applies regardless of
intellectual ability
• Applies to each area of potential concern
PI11.36(6)(6)1
161
Composites
Standard Score (SS)
Reading Comp.
90
Basic Reading Skills
83
Reading Fluency
79
Percentile Rank
25th %ile
13th %ile
8th %ile
SEM by age
NA
2.1
NA
About 11% of population
1.25
SD
Cut
55
70
85
100
115
130
145
81.25
90
Reading Comprehension
83
Basic Reading Skill
Reading Fluency
79
162
INSUFFICIENT PROGRESS
163
Insufficient
Progress
IMPAIRMENT?
NEED FOR
SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
Inadequate
Classroom
Achievement
164
Skills for Which We Compute
RoI (Rate of Improvement)
• Reading
– Oral Reading Fluency
– Word Use Fluency
– Reading Comprehension
• MAZE/DAZE
• Retell, Word Use
– Early Literacy Skills
•
•
•
•
•
Initial Sound
Letter Naming
Letter Sound
Phoneme Segmentation
Nonsense Word
• Spelling
• Written Expression
• Math
–
–
–
–
Math Computation
Math Concepts
Math Facts
Early Numeracy
• Oral Counting
• Missing Number
• Number
Identification
• Quantity
Discrimination
• Behavior
– TWW, CWS, WSC
165
Progress Monitoring Requirements
• (9) “Probes” mean brief, direct measures of specific
academic skills, with multiple equal or nearly equal
forms, that are sensitive to small changes in pupil
performance, and that provide reliable and valid
measures of pupil performance during interventions.
• (10) “Progress monitoring” means a scientifically-based
practice to assess pupil response to interventions.
• (11) “Rate of progress” during an intervention means
the slope of the trend line using least squares
regression on the baseline and all subsequent data
points during each intervention.
166
Insufficient Progress based on
Progress Data From Evidence-Based Interventions
• The student does not make sufficient progress to
meet age or state-approved grade-level standards
in one or more of the eight areas when using a
process based on the student’s response to
intensive scientific, research-based or evidencebased interventions
• Intensive interventions may be implemented
before referral or as part of an evaluation for SLD
PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a
167
Intervention Data to Consider
• The IEP team shall consider progress
monitoring data from at least two intensive,
scientific, research-based or evidence-based
interventions, implemented with adequate
fidelity and closely aligned to individual
student learning needs
PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a
168
Insufficient Progress using Data from
Intensive Intervention
When is the rate of progress considered insufficient in
an SLD determination?
The gap is the same or getting larger
The gap is closing, but will not result in reaching the
average range of achievement in a reasonable period of
time
OR
Gap is improving, but resources needed to continue the
rate of progress cannot be maintained in general
education
169
Insufficient Progress Determined
Establish baseline data point before beginning an
intervention
Begin the intervention
Monitor student progress weekly for minimum
of 8 weeks
Formal progress monitoring data must be
collected; median score of three probes is used for
baseline data point
170
Insufficient Progress
• Insufficient response to intensive scientific
research or evidence-based interventions
• Progress monitoring data from at least 2
intensive interventions in EACH area of potential
SLD required
• Baseline data and at least weekly progress
monitoring is required
• Rate of progress is compared to same-age peers
171
General Implications To Consider
A student’s IQ level is not considered the criterion
against which the student’s academic performance is
compared
Students with intelligence levels in the ‘slow learner’
range may not be excluded from having SLD if they
display significantly inadequate academic
achievement, and if they meet the criteria
Students with high levels of intelligence must display
inadequacies in relation to their age or the state
standards for their grade in order to meet this
criterion
172
Using the Data Tool for Graphing
173
Data Tool Practice
• Graphing Tool Activity Sheets
• Graphing Tool can be downloaded at
http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ld
(Or one of us can load it for you)
174
To Use the Tool:
1. Enter the student’s name and grade information
2. Enter the area of target SLD/behavior the student is to increase (i.e., oral reading
fluency)
3. Enter the name of the intervention
4. Enter the normative data for students of the same age at the 25th percentile of
achievement. Include the fall, winter and spring benchmarks.
5. Enter the scores from the three probes administered to the student to establish
the baseline (the baseline will calculate automatically).
6. Enter the baseline score in the box beneath the week that precedes the first
week of progress monitoring data. For example, if the implementation of the
intervention and collection of progress monitoring data began in week 7, enter the
baseline in week 6.
7. Enter the progress monitoring data in subsequent weeks. It is important to enter
it accurately into the spaces provided for corresponding instructional weeks so a
reliable comparison can be made to the normative data line.
8. The graph will appear on the chart tab.
9. These steps should be repeated for each intervention.
175
176
DECISION MAKING AND
DOCUMENTATION
177
Decision Making: Thinking is
Required!
• Maximizing accurate eligibility decisions using
CBM requires an understanding of error
associated with the data
• While the rule is specific (perhaps too specific)
the decision still requires IEP team thinking and
analysis
– There is no cookbook
– Skills for systematic analysis of data is required
– Context needs to be considered as a source of error
178
Ongoing Research
• RoI for instructional decisions is not a perfect
process
• Research is currently addressing sources of
error:
– Christ, 2006: standard error of measurement for
slope
– Ardoin & Christ, 2009: passage difficulty and
variability
– Jenkin, Graff, & Miglioretti, 2009: frequency of
progress monitoring
179
Variability in CBM Data
• http://measuredeffects.com/measuredeffects.
com/UserFiles/modules/file_upload_library/A
dvanced%20Data%20Based%20Decision%20
Making.pdf
Or
http://measuredeffects.com/presentations
“Advanced Data Based Decision making” PDF
(Pg. 71)
180
How do We Determine “Sufficient Progress” in a
“Reasonable Amount of Time”
The Federal law and State law have both
deferred this determination to the IEP teams.
Best Practices
-Establish local decision guidelines based
upon available research and norms.
-Discuss and determine expected progress
from intervention before initiation.
181
AIMSweb 2.0 Slider
182
Recommendations for Local Decision
Rules
• Consider:
– Research
• What rates of improvement are demonstrated when
high strength interventions, delivered with fidelity, are
provided to similar students?
– Typical Practitioner Results
• What rates of improvement are reported/observed
when high strength interventions are delivered within
the context of typical education settings?
183
Looking at Percent of
Expected Growth
Tigard-Tualatin School District (www.ttsd.k12.or.us)
Tier I
Tier II
Tier III
Greater
than 150%
Between
110% &
150%
Monitor
Gap
Between
95% & 110%
May Need
More
Between
80% & 95%
May Need
More
May Need
More
Insufficient
Below 80%
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
184
Oral Reading Fluency Adequate Response
Table
Realistic
Growth
Ambitious
Growth
1st
2.0
3.0
2nd
1.5
2.0
3rd
1.0
1.5
4th
0.9
1.1
5th
0.5
0.8
185
Digit Fluency Adequate
Response Table
1st
Realistic
Growth
0.3
Ambitious
Growth
0.5
2nd
0.3
0.5
3rd
0.3
0.5
4th
0.75
1.2
5th
0.75
1.2
186
An Example
• Expected rate of improvement is:
≥ 1.25 * Norm ROI (25th percentile)
This is determined based upon research indicating
that typical ROI observed with highest quality
interventions is 1.5 to 2.0 times Norm ROI (Fuchs, L.
et al., 1993; Deno et al.)
187
Decision Rules: An Example using 1.25
x ROI
Student: Aidan; Target behavior: Words read correctly in one minute; Goal
performance (50.1) in 36 weeks.
120
Normative
ROI = .78
100
y = 2.3234x + 9.8801
80
60
50
48
40
38
35
40
33
25
20 20
15
15
20
9
8 10
18
ROI = Norm ROI (.78) X 1.25 =.975
25
14
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
188
Need for Special Education?
• Having an “impairment” does not always require
special education?
• Need for special education is demonstrated by
evidence that outcomes will be improved with
access to more intense support available in
Special Education.
– We know what works but can’t deliver without Special
Ed.
– We haven’t found what works and we need special
education to find solutions that accelerate learning to
close the gap.
189
A Decision Regarding Eligibility
for SLD Has Been Made…..
Are We Done???
190
NO!!!!!!
If student meets eligibility criteria for SLD…
• Intensive Interventions must continue
• Interventions must be monitored
• Student must be making progress at sufficient
rate of learning
• We need to work harder to accelerate the
learning
191
If student does not meet eligibility criteria….
• Intensive Intervention may need to be
continued awhile longer
• Additional classroom supports need to be
considered
• Student progress continues to be monitored
192
Final Thoughts
• Preparing the systems and routines at your
building guided by RtI/MTSS frameworks is
the BEST way to prepare for SLD.
• It is not about becoming expert at finding SLD
students it about creating a system that is
expert at accelerating all students.
• You will not be perfect by Dec 1, 2013… that is
why we call it “Continuous” School
Improvement !
193
High above the hushed
crowd, Rex tried to remain
focused. Still, he couldn’t
shake one nagging thought:
He was an old dog and this
was a new trick.
We are being asked to accomplish things we’ve never
done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence
194
Case Study
195
Progress Monitoring
Oral Reading Fluency Grade 4 Example
120
112
Norm ROI .78
110
101
100
90
84
80
70
PM Data
Aimline = 1.25 * Norm ROI
60
Norm Avg Score (25th percentile)
50
Linear (PM Data)
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Progress Monitoring
Oral Reading Fluency Grade 4 Example
120
112
Norm ROI .78
110
101
100
90
84
80
70
PM Data
Aimline = 1.25 * Norm ROI
60
Norm Avg Score (25th percentile)
50
Linear (PM Data)
40
30
26
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Progress Monitoring
Oral Reading Fluency Grade 4 Example
120
112
Norm ROI .78
110
101
100
90
84
80
70
PM Data
Aimline = 1.25 * Norm ROI
60
Norm Avg Score (25th percentile)
50
Linear (PM Data)
40
30
26
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Progress Monitoring
Oral Reading Fluency Grade 4 Example
120
112
Norm ROI .78
110
101
100
90
84
80
70
60
PM Data
Aimline = 1.25 * Norm ROI
60
Norm Avg Score (25th percentile)
50
43
40
30
20
10
26
Aimline ROI: 1.25(.78) = .98
Aimline at 18 Weeks: 26 + .98(17) = 26 + 16.66 = 42.66 (Round to 43)
Aimline at 36 Weeks: 26 + .98(35) =26 + 34.3 = 60.3 Round to 60
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Linear (PM Data)
Progress Monitoring
Oral Reading Fluency Grade 4 Example
120
112
Norm ROI .78
110
101
100
90
84
80
70
60
Aimline = 1.25 * Norm ROI
60
Norm Avg Score (25th percentile)
50
50
45
40
Linear (PM Data)
43
40
30
PM Data
y = 0.1993x + 31.788
38
35
26 26
28
30
28
25 26
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Progress Monitoring
Oral Reading Fluency Grade 4 Example
120
112
Norm ROI .78
110
101
100
90
84
80
y = 1.207x + 25.496
70
65
62
56
60
50
50
45
40
45
38
Aimline = 1.25 * Norm ROI
Linear (PM Data)
45 45
43
40
33
28
30
28
PM Data
Norm Avg Score (25th percentile)
40
38
35
26 26
60
50
40
30
58
25 26
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
TOOLS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL
DECISION-MAKING
203
Data types used within the RtI model
(cont.)
204
Progress Monitor (Tier 3):
Intensive assessment with adjustable
frequency that matches need
3
(All identifying information and scores are fictitious.)
205
Actual Student Data & Benchmark 3rd grade
ORF
120
y = 2.5138x + 42.113
120
y = 1.0588x + 90.941
y = 0.8824x + 76.118
y = 1.8872x + 74.81
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0
1
Student Slope (SS)=2.5
Norm ROI=0.88
SS is 2.84 X
Norm ROI
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Student Slope (SS)=1.89
Benchmark ROI=1.06
11
12
13
14
15
16
SS is 1.78 X
Norm ROI
206
17
18
ROI Student: .27
ROI Norm: .72
207
ROI Student: .98
ROI Norm : .72
208
209
210
211
212
213
DPI RESOURCES
214
215
216
Final Thoughts
• Preparing the systems and routines at your
building guided by RtI/MTSS frameworks is
the BEST way to prepare for SLD.
• It is not about becoming expert at finding SLD
students it about creating a system that is
expert at accelerating all students.
• You will not be perfect by Dec 1, 2013… that is
why we call it “Continuous” School
Improvement !
217
Practical Applications
218
Instruction AND Intervention
ESSENTIAL PRACTICES
219
Intervention Logic
• Core?
– Effective
– Differentiated (intervention)
• Which Area of Need?
– What data?
• What Intensive intervention
strategies/program?
– SRBI
• Decision-making
220
Interventions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Are NOT:
Are:
• Activities which are
In addition to core
intended to put students
instruction
into alternative settings
Consider alterable
where appropriate
variables first - time
interventions can occur
Begin at the Tier 1 level
• A designated period
Include strategies such as
everyday
differentiation
• A different setting or
Respond to student needs
location
as soon as identified as
not meeting benchmarks
Evidence-based
221
Essential Components for Effective
Reading Instruction & Intervention
• Explicit
• Systematic
• Practice and Feedback
• Mastery and Application
( National Research Council, 1998; National Reading Panel, 2000)
222
Explicit Instruction
(Wilhelm, 2001 & Pearson and Gallagher, 1983)
Skills are directly taught through:
1.
Modeling - Demonstrate the skill exactly with concise
language.
2.
Supported practice - “Say it with me” or “Let’s do it
together.” Repeat until firm or model again if
necessary.
3.
Test - Ask student to demonstrate the skill
independently. “Your turn” Provide corrective
feedback.
ALWAYS IN THIS ORDER- teach before testing
223
Systematic Instruction
(National Reading Panel, 2000)
• All essential skills are taught and follows a
logical sequence from beginning skills to more
difficult skills.
• Planned and not incidental.
• Follows a particular order that enhances
learning.
• Includes all essential elements with nothing
left to chance to prevent gaps in knowledge.
224
Repeated Practice
(Carnine & Silbert, 1979; Gettinger & Seibert, 2002)
• Choral responding - Whole class response
• Small group instruction - Increase number
of opportunities to respond
• Call on individuals
• Review previously learned information for
a few minutes daily
225
Corrective Feedback
(Carnine & Silbert, 1979)
• Immediate
• Model skill again, if needed
• Concise and direct (Give the correct answer and repeat
task)
• Available any time a child is learning a new skill before it is
mastered
• Emphasize mastery and generalization
226
Which Area(s) of Need?
INTERVENTIONS
227
strong
Comprehension
assessment
Continue with
grade-level
lessons
strong
Teach vocabulary and
comprehension
weak
Example for Reading
Fluency
assessment
strong
weak
Word Recognition
assessment
weak
Teach fluency
strong
Grades K-3: Follow the chart from
bottom to top, from discrete skills to
broad abilities.
Grades 4-12: Follow the chart from
top to bottom, from broad abilities
to discrete skills. Note: If the teacher
already knows that comprehension
is weak, start with fluency.
Teach word
recognition
Phonics
(decoding)
assessment
strong
Teach explicit
phonics
weak
Phonemic
Awareness
assessment
weak
Teach blending,
228
segmenting sounds
strong
Maze and Oral
Reading Fluency
Continue with
grade-level
lessons
strong
Teach vocabulary and
comprehension
weak
DSD Example
Oral Reading
Fluency
strong
weak
Nonsense Word
Fluency
weak
Teach fluency
strong
Grades K-3: Follow the chart from
bottom to top, from discrete skills to
broad abilities.
Grades 4-12: Follow the chart from
top to bottom, from broad abilities
to discrete skills. Note: If the teacher
already knows that comprehension
is weak, start with fluency.
Teach word
recognition
Phoneme
Segmentation
Fluency
strong
Teach explicit
phonics
weak
Letter Sound
weak
Teach blending,
229
segmenting sounds
strong
Continue with
grade-level
lessons
MAZE Assessment
and Word Analysis
strong
Teach vocabulary and
comprehension
weak
Canyons SD MS/HS Example
Phonics Surveys
strong
Teach explicit
phonics
weak
Oral Reading
Fluency Probes
strong
weak
Academic Word
and Sight Word
Inventories
weak
Teach fluency
strong
Teach word
recognition
Literacy Process
Interview
weak
Teach reading
230
strategies
Programs vs. Strategies
Why choose a well-developed intervention “program” to
guide instruction?
It acts as a scaffold for good teaching behaviors
It provides a well-organized scope and sequence
It has coordinated and aligned practice materials and
activities
It should help with proper pacing and movement of
instruction
231
Identifying “Research-Based”
Practice in Education
Basic Concepts and Definitions
LO2
232
“Scientifically Based Research"
• The more generic term, scientifically based research, appears
seventy-nine times in the statute. The statute explains that
•
•
•
•
•
(A) means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and
objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education
activities and programs; and
(B) includes research that
(i) employs systematic, empirical methods
(ii) involves rigorous data analyses
(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid
data
(iv) is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental …with a preference for randomassignment experiments
(v) ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail …
(vi) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.
(20 U. S. C. § 7801(37))
233
Scientifically Based Reading Research
• Federal statute defines scientifically based reading research as:
• rigorous, systematic, and objective
• (B) includes research that
(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or
experiment;
(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated
hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid
data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements
and observations; and
(iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a
panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective,
and scientific review. (20 U. S. C. § 6368(6))
234
The Statute Specifically Defines the
“Essential Components of Reading
Instruction”
Essential components of reading instruction:
– The term "essential components of reading
instruction" means explicit and systematic
instruction in - (A) phonemic awareness; (B)
phonics; (C) vocabulary development; (D) reading
fluency, including oral reading skills; and (E)
reading comprehension strategies.
(20 U. S. C. § 6368(3))
235
236
Framework for Rating Quality of
Evidence
• Step 1: Is the program or strategy backed by “strong”
evidence of effectiveness?
• Step 2: If not backed by “strong” evidence, is it
backed by “possible” evidence?
• Step 3: If the answers to both are “no” the
conclusion must be that the practice is not currently
backed by adequate evidence.
U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, 2003
237
Criteria for “Strong Evidence”
• Quality of studies
– Randomized controlled Trials
– Well Designed
– Well Implemented
• Quantity of evidence
– Two or more typical school settings
– Settings similar to your school/classroom
238
Criteria for “Possible Evidence”
• Randomized trials that do not have adequate
quality or quantity
– Small samples
– Narrow demographic
• Comparison group studies matched on
important variables
239
Not “Possible Evidence”
• Pre-Post Studies
– No comparison or control group
• Qualitative studies (Stanovich and Stanovich, 2003)
• Meta-analyses that do not control for quality of
studies included.
• Anecdotal reports
• Authority opinion
240
Other Important Factors to Consider
• Publication in “refereed journals”
–
–
–
–
–
Peer review
American Education Research Journal (AERA)
Journal of Educational Psychology
NOT: Phi Delta Kappan or Ed. Leadership
NOT: Conference presentations
• Replication
• Effectiveness vs. Efficacy vs. Generalizability
241
Sources for SRBI Strategies/Tools
WI RtI Center
• http://www.wirticenter.com/intervention2/
Center for Intensive Intervention
• http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resources
Florida Center for Reading Research
• http://www.fcrr.org/
What Works Clearinghouse
• http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
Vaughn-Gross Center for Reading Research
• http://www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/
Center for RtI in Early Education
• Http://www.crtiec.dept.ku.edu/
242
High above the hushed
crowd, Rex tried to remain
focused. Still, he couldn’t
shake one nagging thought:
He was an old dog and this
was a new trick.
We are being asked to accomplish things we’ve never
done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence
243