Transcript Here’s my 1st title page… - University of Cincinnati

DATA-BASED
DECISION MAKING &
COLLABORATIVE
PROBLEM SOLVING
UC
Summer
Institute
June
2011
Alicia
Lateer-Huhn
ASSESSMENT
THE BIG PICTURE
Academic Systems
Progress
Monitoring and
Diagnostics
1-5% Intensive Individualized
Interventions
5-10% Targeted
Interventions
80-90% School-Wide
Interventions
Adapted from OSEP
Effective School-Wide
Interventions
Behavioral Systems
1-5% Intensive Individualized
Interventions
Progress
Monitoring
5-10% Targeted
Interventions
Universal Screening
80-90% School-Wide
Interventions
Decisions about tiers
of support are databased
What question are we trying to answer?
ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR
DIFFERENT PURPOSES:
 Screening
 Monitoring Progress
 Instructional Planning (Diagnostic)
 Program Evaluation / Outcomes
RTI ASSESSMENTS
 Tier 1:
 Universal screening
 Tier 2:
 Progress Monitoring and additional information
 Tier 3:
 More frequent progress monitoring
 More assessments based upon individualized
needs (e.g. pre-requisite skills, diagnostics)
* On-going assessments (e.g. formative, mastery,
short-cycle, and informal assessments) are part
of all 3 tiers and used in meaningful ways
WHAT QUESTION ARE WE TRYING TO ANSWER
WITHIN AN RTI FRAMEWORK?
TIER 1 ASSESSMENT
• Univer sal Screening
– Connected to key academic content or behavior
– Conducted at least 3 times per year on a regular basis, using
comparable test forms
– Administered school wide to all students
– Used to determine if additional examination is warranted
– Features: short, few items, focus on critical indicators
• 2 critical pieces of information
– Is the Tier 1 core effective?
• For all students (aggregated)?
• For each subgroup of students (disaggregated)?
– Who are the students needing additional support? What percent?
A SCHOOLWIDE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMUNIVERSAL SCREENING
 Criteria
 Reliable and valid indicators of skills highly
associated with academic success (reading and
math)
 Sensitive and accurate
 Simple, quick, cost effective measures that are
easily repeatable for continuous progress monitoring
(practical)
 Standardized
• Reliability is critical. Need a process for training and
integrity checks of data collection
Universal Screening Tools:
• Reading
– Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
– www.dibels.org or dibels.uoregon.edu
– Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM; www.aimsweb.com or
www.studentprogress.org)
– Oral Reading Fluency
– Maze
• Math
– Curriculum Based Measurement (e.g. www.aimsweb.com )
– Number sense
– Computation fluency
– Algebraic principles
• Behavior
– School Wide Information System (SWIS; www.swis.org)
UNIVERSAL SCREENING: A MULTIPLE
STEP PROCESS AT SECONDARY LEVEL
How will we match students to
appropriate supports (Why are they
struggling?)?
Step 1:
All students at or below a team-selected
percentile (e.g. 45 th percentile) on state or
district testing related to literacy
Heartland AEA, IA
MULTI-GATED SYSTEM FOR
SECONDARY
1st gate:
Assessment: Use of OAA/OGT (reading, social
studies, science) and other available building
screening data, such as CBM and common formative
assessments to screen out students who are
progressing well in Reading. May also consider
Office Discipline Referral (ODR) data.
Support:
Pass = Daily Reading/English course focus on “big
ideas.” All content-area teachers providing
effective vocabulary and comprehension
instruction
Doesn’t Pass = Go to Gate 2
MULTI-GATED SYSTEM FOR
SECONDARY
2nd gate:
 Assessment: Fluency assessment
 Oral Reading Fluency – Probes available for 7 th and 8 th
grade on www.aimsweb.com, create probes for 9 th -12 th
on interventioncentral.org or use 8 th -grade passages
from Aimsweb
 Support:
 Pass = Needs additional instructional support in
comprehension and/or vocabulary
 Doesn’t Pass = Goes to Gate 3
CONSIDERATIONS FOR ORF GATE
 Use Oral Reading Fluency data (i.e., words correct per
minute) and accuracy information to determine if
student “passes”
 Purpose is to determine which students have adequate
fluency. It’s important to know if students are:
 accurate and fluent
 inaccurate and fast
 inaccurate and slow
 accurate and slow
 School team would need to set its own decision rules
 Example: any student who scores below the 50%
percentile on oral reading fluency and any student who
is less than 97% accurate would go to Gate 3
MULTI-GATED SYSTEM FOR
SECONDARY
3rd gate:
Assessment: Phonics Assessment
Example: placement assessment from a researchbased phonics intervention chosen for Tier 2 or
advanced phonics assessment
Support:
Pass = Needs additional support in fluency
Access to supplemental Tier 1 fluency intervention (e.g. Read
Naturally, Six Minute Solution)
Doesn’t Pass = Tier 1 plus Tier 2 support
Elective reading class where a research-based intervention is
implemented. Program should focus on phonics in addition to fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension (e.g. use of Corrective Reading,
REWARDS, Language!)
BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY DATA BASED DECISIONS…
How do you know the data are:
Accurate?
Valid?
Reliable?
Now, what question
do the data answer?
TURN AND TALK
Assessment inventory
 Do you have tools that answer the question:
 How healthy is your system?
 Are students making progress/demonstrating
mastery on targeted skills from Tier 1 core
instruction?
 Are you missing assessment tools?
TIER 2
PROGRESS MONITORING
All students receiving Tier 2 and 3
interventions are assessed on an on-going
basis.
Quick assessments (1-5 minutes)
Administered frequently (weekly, biweekly)
Brief, parallel versions
Sensitive to changes in student
performance
Individual student graphs with goal and
aim-line
PROGRESS MONITORING
Progress monitoring is designed to:
 Estimate rates of student improvement and skill
development.
 Identify students who are not demonstrating
adequate progress.
 Compare the efficacy of different forms of
instruction and design more effective, individualized
instructional programs for students struggling to
progress .
TIER 3 ASSESSMENTS
•Progress Monitoring-same characteristics as tier 2, but more
frequent/intensive monitoring
•Decision rules made with at least 7 data points
•Diagnostic assessment to ensure accurate focus of
intervention
•Sample reading assessments
 DIBELS/AIMSweb
 Benchmarks
 Mastery tests
 Diagnostics
 DRA
 Placement tests
 Checklists
 Self-monitoring
 CBM
TIER 3 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT:
DIAGNOSTICS / INSTRUCTIONAL PLACEMENT
For students who are struggling, further
diagnostic assessment may be completed to
gather more in-depth information:
specific skill deficits and
patterns of skills the student does or does not
have to determine instructional placement
(May be used at Tier 2; always used at Tier 3)
DECISION RULES FOR MOVING
BETWEEN TIERS
Must establish clear decision rules for data
and intervention implementation. This is a
fluid model!! Clear procedures are needed.
 Moving from Tier 1 to Tier 2
 Moving from Tier 2 to Tier 1
 Moving from Tier 2 to Tier 3
 Moving from Tier 3 to Tier 2
EXAMPLES OF DECISION RULES
FOR MOVING BETWEEN TIERS
Student Data
 Have at least 7 data points in a phase
 3 Data-point decision rule —If 3 consecutive data-points are
found below the aim line, suggests that you need to change
the intervention.
 3 Data points above the goal line suggests need for a
change: in goal, fade intervention support, move to more
challenging material.
Intervention Implementation Data
 Intervention occurred at least 80% of the time (child and
teacher present)
 Integrity was checked every other month and was done with
at least 85% adherence
COLLABORATIVE
PROBLEM SOLVING
CREATING A
CULTURE OF COLLABORATION
Do We Really Collaborate?!
OIP Facilitator’s Guide, September
A COLLABORATIVE TEAM:
A group of people working
interdependently to achieve
a common goal for which
members are mutually
accountable.
DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2007
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM
SOLVING
1. Problem Definition: What is the problem (discrepancy
between actual and expected performance?
2. Problem Analysis: Why is the problem occurring?
3. Goal Setting: What do we want to see happening by
when?
4. Plan Development & Implementation: What will be
done to meet the goal and how will progress be
measured?
5. Plan Evaluation: Did we implement the plan as
described and is it working?
RTI PLANNING TOOLS
 Elementary and Secondary Versions
 Purpose of the Planning Tool and supporting
documents
 Utilizes the Collaborative Problem Solving Process
 Available electronically:
www.sst13.org
Response to Intervention
MOVING UPSTREAM:
A STORY OF PREVENTION AND
INTERVENTION
MiBLSi
In a small town, a group of fishermen
gathered down at the river. Not long
after they got there, a child came
floating down the rapids calling for
help. One of the group on the shore
quickly
dived in
and pulled
the child out.
MiBLSi
Minutes later another child came, then
another, and then many more children
were coming down the river. Soon
everyone was diving in and dragging
children to the shore,
then jumping
back in to save
as many as
they could.
MiBLSi
In the midst of all this frenzy, one of
the group was seen walking away. Her
colleagues were irate. How could she
leave when there were so many
children to save? After long hours, to
everyone’s relief, the flow of children
stopped, and the group could finally
catch their breath.
At that moment, their colleague came
back. They turned on her and angrily
shouted:
“HOW COULD YOU WALK
OFF WHEN WE NEEDED
EVERYONE HERE TO SAVE
THE CHILDREN?”
MiBLSi
She replied, It occurred to me that
someone ought to go upstream and find
out why so many kids were falling into
the river. What I found is that the old
wooden bridge had several planks
missing, and when some children tried
to jump over the gap, they couldn’t
make it and fell through into the
river. So I got someone
to fix the bridge.
MiBLSi
THANKS!!!!