Transcript Response to Intervention 2006-2007

Response to Intervention (RTI)
Lindenhurst Schools
2007-2008
Long Island Association for
Supervision and Curriculum
Development (LIASCD)
Fall Conference – October 19, 2007
Workshop Objectives





Understanding the stages of adopting and integrating
RTI into several elementary schools
Identify factors that contribute to the effective
implementation of RTI
Recognizing the importance of a collaborative
approach
Understanding the necessity of managing data
Sharing ideas and insights between districts
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/onlinemodules.html
Response to Intervention - RTI

Federal Government –
–
–
–
Reauthorization of IDEA in 2004
Shift in identifying students with reading difficulties
and classifying them Learning Disabled.
General Education and Special Education work in a
collaborative model. Roles of each teacher must be
redefined to address literacy.
Schools must shift resources to support struggling
readers in the general education setting.
Definition of RTI

High-quality instruction/intervention that is matched to students’
needs and has been demonstrated through scientific research and
practice to produce high learning rates for most students

Learning rate and level of performance are the primary sources of
information used in ongoing decision-making

Important educational decisions about intensity and duration of
interventions are based on individual student’s response to
instruction across multiple tiers of intervention.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005
Problem-solving Model – IST
Process, not interventions, are standardized
Individualized plan for each child that involves different
levels of consultation:
•Description of student’s problem
•Data collection and problem analysis
•Intervention design and implementation –
differentiated instruction determined by data
•Progress monitoring
•Evaluation of intervention effectiveness
•Flexible groupings throughout the year
Wilson, 2007
Interventions are NOT







Shortened assignments
Preferential seating
Parent contacts
Classroom observations
Suspensions
Doing more of the same assignments
Retention
McCook, J., 2005
CORE Concepts of RTI



Research-based instruction – core programs are
taught with fidelity as intended to maximize
effectiveness. Instruction is focused on achieving state
standards
Use of data to inform instruction – universal
screening of all students to measure and to monitor the
development of skills – provide program accountability
Measurement of response – progress monitoring is
used to determine the effectiveness of interventions – it
is systematic, documented, and shared with staff
Intervention Organized in Tiers
• Layers of intervention responding to
students’ needs
• Each tier provides more intensive and
supportive intervention
• Aimed at preventing reading
disabilities
Torgeson, 2004
Multi-Tiered Response
Tier III
CSE
Referral
FEW
Tier II
Small Group Intervention
More intensive duration
SOME
Tier I
Whole group classroom instruction
ALL
3 Tier Model for RTI
Tier 3
More Differentiated Intense Interventions
*Increase frequency and duration of intervention
*Referral to Special Education
Strategic Monitoring
Tier 2
Implementing Supplementary Instruction
*General Ed Teacher, AIS Teacher, Related Service Providers,
Special Ed Teachers
*Fundations, Wilson, Small Group Instruction through AIS Reading, ERSS Speech
Progress Monitoring
Tier 1
Implementing Classroom Instruction – General Ed Teacher
* Researched Based Curriculum – Harcourt Reading Program, Differentiated
Instruction, Focus instruction on Big Ideas of Literacy.
Three Levels of Assessment

Benchmark Assessment – 3 times a year
–
–
–
-

Are there children who need additional support?
How many?
Which children?
What to do? Evaluate benchmark assessment data
Progress Monitoring –
- Assess at-risk children more frequently – every two weeks
- Are current programs sufficient to keep progress on track or are
additional supports / interventions needed?

Strategic Monitoring - weekly monitoring
What decisions do we make with
data?

Plan for support with focus on BIG IDEAS.
–
–
–
Grouping – small group instruction, homogenous
groups, differentiated instruction, flexible grouping.
Time – How much? How Frequently? When?
Teacher / Student Interactions – modeling, direct
explanation, increase student engagement, increase
guided practice with immediate feedback,
scaffolding to support learning, review
BIG IDEAS





Phonemic Awareness
Alphabetic Principle
Accuracy and Fluency with connected text
Vocabulary
Comprehension
General Outcome Measures- (GOM)
of Early Literacy

Relevant Features
–
–
–
–
Measure Basic Early Literacy Skills (Big Ideas)
Efficient
Standardized
Sensitive to growth and change over time and to the
effects of intervention
How can we use GOM to change
Reading Outcomes?



Begin Early
Focus Instruction on the BIG IDEAS of Early
Literacy
Focus Assessment on Outcomes for Students
Getting Started…..

Select a team –
–
–
–
Classroom teachers, reading specialists, psychologist, building
principal, special education teacher(s), speech teacher, other.
People that have a vested interest in reading and literacy
outcomes.
Attend training sessions
Plan for data collection –



Who will collect data?
When will you collect data?
How will you collect data?
Collecting Data





Plan and Schedule Data Collection
Organize Resources
Collect Data
Enter the Data
Use Data for Educational Decision Making
Scheduling Data Collection

Classroom Approach – Obtain coverage for classroom teacher.
Approximately 1-2 minutes per benchmark per student. Teacher works in
hallway / room.
Advantages – Teachers assess own students, less disruptive to entire
school.
Disadvantages – Loss of instructional time, coverage, requires more
days.

Building-wide Approach – Multiple specialists / trained members of
team will assess students. Teacher brings class to library, cafeteria, gym,
or other location with tables. Entire class can be assessed in 30 minutes.
Advantages – can be completed in one day, minimal classroom
disruptions and loss of instructional time.
Disadvantages – space, trained staff, teachers not assessing.
Benchmark Assessments
Kindergarten
Fall – Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), Letter Naming Fluency
(LNF), Letter Sound Fluency (LSF)
Winter – Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Letter Sound
Fluency (LSF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF),
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)
Spring – Same as Winter
Benchmark Assessments
Grade 1
Fall – Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Letter Sound Fluency (LSF),
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word
Fluency (NWF)
Winter – Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense
Word Fluency (NWF), DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF),
Maze
Spring – Same as Winter
Benchmark Assessment – Cont’d
Grade 2 – 5
• Oral Reading Fluency
• Maze (Comprehension)
Data Management System
AIMS Web – Achievement Improvement
Monitoring System
www.aimsweb.com
School Readiness for RTI



Assessment: screening measures, progress
monitoring practices and procedures
Curriculum: high-quality, research-based core
curricula
Instruction: focus on effective instruction and
interventions
School Readiness - Continued



Positive School Climate: school-wide
processes and structures, individual student
interventions, and a professional learning
community
Professional Development: outcome focused
content and ongoing assistance
Leadership: problem solving and individual
characteristics of strong leaders
Closing the Achievement Gap: School Readiness for RtI, Sopris
West Educational Services, 2007
Thank You for
Your Attention
and
Participation