Transcript Document
Benchmark Screening: Using Screening Data A module for pre-service and in-service professional development MN RTI Center Author: Lisa H. Stewart, PhD Minnesota State University Moorhead www.scred.k12.mn.us click on RTI Center MN RtI Center 1 MN RTI Center Training Modules This module was developed with funding from the MN legislature It is part of a series of modules available from the MN RTI Center for use in preservice and inservice training: Module Title Authors 1. RTI Overview Kim Gibbons & Lisa Stewart 2. Measurement and RTI Overview Lisa Stewart 3. Curriculum Based Measurement and RTI Lisa Stewart 4. Universal Screening (Benchmarking): (Two parts) Lisa Stewart What, Why and How Using Screening Data 5. Progress Monitoring: (Two parts) Lisa Stewart & Adam Christ What, Why and How Using Progress Monitoring Data MN RtI Center 6. Evidence-Based Practices Ann Casey 7. Problem Solving in RTI Kerry Bollman 8. Differentiated Instruction Peggy Ballard 9. Tiered Service Delivery and Instruction Wendy Robinson 10. Leadership and RTI Jane Thompson & Ann Casey 11. Family involvement and RTI Amy Reschly 12. Five Areas of Reading Kerry Bollman 13. Schoolwide Organization Kim Gibbons 2 Overview This module is Part 2 of 2 Module 1: Benchmark Screening: What, Why and How What is screening? Why screen students? Criteria for screeners/what tools? Screening logistics Module 2: Using Benchmark Screening Data MN RtI Center 3 Assessment: One of the Key Components in RTI Curriculum and Instruction Assessment School Wide Organization & Problem Solving Systems (Teams, Process, etc) MN RtI Center 4 Adapted from Logan City School District, 2002 Screening Data can be linked to Progress Monitoring The goal is to have a cohesive system. If possible, use the same measures for both screening and progress monitoring (e.g, CBM). MN RtI Center Screen ALL students 3x per year (F, W, S) Strategic Support and Monitoring Students at Some Risk Intensive Support & Monitoring for Students at Extreme Risk 5 Using Screening Data MN RtI Center 6 Interpreting the Data and Reports Norm-referenced Target Scores Students at or below a certain percentile on local or national norms are determined to be “at risk” 1. 2. 3. >50%ile = on target 15-49%ile = some risk 0-14%ile = high risk Can be problematic if a lot of students are having difficulty or if local norm group is very small MN RtI Center 7 Interpreting the Data and Reports Criterion-Referenced “Benchmark” or Target Scores Target scores are set based on how well they predict success on another measure Success on the next screening or success on a high stakes test 1.) Established, Low Risk or “Benchmark”: 80% of the students would achieve subsequent goals 2) Emerging, Some Risk or “Strategic”: 50/50 odds so no clear prediction 3) Deficit, High Risk or “Intensive”: 20% or fewer of the students would meet subsequent goals MN RtI Center 8 Example: DIBELS Benchmark Goals K-6 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency 35 sounds per minute by Spring of K 50 sounds per minute by Winter Gr 1 Oral Reading Fluency (in grade level material) 40 words per minute by Spring Gr 1 90 words per minute by Spring Gr 2 110 words per minute by Spring Gr 3 118 words per minute by Spring Gr 4 124 words per minute by Spring Gr 5 125 words per minute by Spring Gr 6 MN RtI Center 9 Targets Tied to High Stakes Test Grade Measure Target 1 January = 52 letter sounds Nonsense Word Fluency correct/min 1 2 CBM Grade Level Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Spring = 52 words CBM ORF Spring = 90 words correct/min correct/min 3 CBM ORF Spring =109 words correct/min 4 CBM ORF Spring =127 words correct/min 5 CBM ORF Spring =141 words correct/min 6 CBM ORF Spring =166 words correct/min MN RtI Center Based on St. Croix River Education District 08-09 Targets linked to success on Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment – II 10 Screening is Used to: Monitor “gross” progress of all students Evaluate instructional programs Establish school norms Call attention to students having difficulty or at risk of having difficulty MN RtI Center 11 Box and Whisker Charts Student is above the 90 %ile and is well above average. 90th %ile 75th %ile 50th %ile 25th %ile Target 10th %ile MN RtI Center 12 Monitoring “Gross” Progress as a Group & Individually: Gr 2 CBM ORF Fall and Winter Screening Data MN RtI Center Jimmy Marisol 13 Screening Data and Curriculum & Instruction Decisions Where do students move from Fall to Winter to Spring? Chutes and ladders chart What do the data look like across years? Using screening data to drive discussions about allocating resources and shifting curriculum and instruction to respond to student needs MN RtI Center DRAFT May 27, 2009 14 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 Goal 70% 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% MN RtI Center Total Enrollment: 2 10 68 Strategic 10 students 15% Strategic Intensive 10 students 15% Intensive 67 Credit: SCRED 15 Benchmark “Bonus”! Using Data to Evaluate Instructional Effects Over Time Each color represents a different year (oldest to most recent) (Missing Fall data because ORF not collected Fall Gr. 1) MN RtI Center 16 Screening Data and Curriculum & Instruction • Should both of these classrooms have the same resources? • Same curriculum, instruction and schedule? Kin de rgarte n C lass List Re port District:Hope County School District School: Melody Mountain School Date: Fall Class: MrFrizzleAM Initial Sound Fluency Letter Nam ing Fluency Goal: 8 initial sounds Goal: 8 letter names Student Am anda Bo Cassius Dario Estelle Filene Georgie Hall Iy la Jake Kay lie Luke McKenna Neela Owen Parsons Quinn Rowen Ty son Usher Vince Windy Yancy Zane Status 8 9 11 12 15 15 17 20 21 22 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 27 29 29 31 33 38 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 Mean Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk 13 2 20 17 1 11 20 32 22 23 36 43 4 18 20 38 30 33 23 32 18 6 15 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Status Instructional Recom m endations Low risk Som e risk Low risk Low risk At risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Som e risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Som e risk Low risk Som e risk Benchm ark - At Grade Level Strategic - Additional Intervention Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Strategic - Additional Intervention Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Strategic - Additional Intervention Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Benchm ark - At Grade Level Strategic - Additional Intervention Benchm ark - At Grade Level Strategic - Additional Intervention 20 Mean Kindergarten Class List Report, 08/24/2004, 15 Classroom 1: 19/24 children (79%) are on track 5/24 children (21%) have some risk 0 children (0%) are at risk Classroom 2: 8/23 children (35%) are on track 11/23 children (48%) have some risk 3/23 children (13%) are at risk MN RtI Center 17 Establishing School Norms Gives an idea of the range of student skills in your building and how much growth students are making MN RtI Center DRAFT May 27, 2009 18 Identifying Students in Need of Additional Instruction Primary Purpose of Screening! Overall, how many “at risk” students do we have who need help? Which students need help? Are there logical “groups” of student needs that can help us focus our efforts? MN RtI Center 19 How Many Students Need Help? Grade or Class “Histograms” (Spring Gr 1) 38% “Low Risk” (>=40 wrc) 22% “Some Risk” (20-39 wrc) 40% “At-Risk” (0-19 wrc) CBM Reading 18 16 Frequency 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 MN RtI Center Correct Words 20 Who Needs Help? Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 MN RtI Center DRAFT May 27, 2009 21 Benchmarking Class Lists!!!! Where the Rubber Hits the Road for Teachers, Teams and Individual Instructional Decision Making…. MN RtI Center 22 Who Needs Help? Class Lists and Forming Instructional Groups Example Fall Gr 1 Phonemic Awareness Alphabetic Principle From DIBELS® Data System, ©University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning MN RtI Center 23 Credit: R. Kaminski DMG Credit: R. Kaminski DMG, Stephanie Stoller, OISM MN RtI Center 24 Remember: Screening is Just That… The “Yep, Yep, Yep, …HUH?” Test…. Make sure you THINK about the student and the data. MN RtI Center 25 Build in Time to USE the Data! Schedule data “retreats” or grade level meeting times immediately after screening so you can look at and USE the data for planning. MN RtI Center 26 Remember: Screening is just ONE part of a solid RTI assessment system A core feature of RTI is identifying a measurement system Screen large numbers of students Identify students in need of additional intervention Monitor students of concern more frequently 1 to 4x per month Typically weekly Diagnostic testing used to help target interventions as neede MN RtI Center 27 Decision-Tree for Screening Instructional DecisionMaking & Progress Monitoring w/ DIBELS *Decision-Tree for Screening, Instructional Decision-Making, & Progress Monitoring with DIBELS Did the student meet or exceed the Low Risk/Benchmark goals on the most recent DIBELS testing? YES NO Did the student fall into the "Some risk" category or the "At-risk" category? An intervention plan may be needed. Next progress check is regularly scheduled DIBELS testing for all students Some risk Do other data (e.g., OS, BMRR, DRA) indicate some concern? NO Make sure a good curricula is in place in the classroom and consider monitoring monthly. At risk Do other data (e.g., OS, BMRR, DRA) indicate high level of concern? (important here to get good info) YES Put the student in strategic instruction (e.g., small group with supplemental curricula). Be SURE TO CONTINUE TO USE DATA to make changes as needed. Monitor monthly. NO YES Put the student in intensive instruction (e.g., 1:1 or very small group with supplemental and direct instruction curricula). Be SURE TO CONTINUE TO USE DATA to make changes as needed. Monitor weekly! MN RtI Center *Note: The concept and content of this model was provided by Dr. Lisa Stewart of MSUM 28 Remember: Garbage IN…. Garbage OUT…. Avoid Common Mistakes Make sure your data are reliable and valid indicators or they won’t be good for nuthin… Training Assessment Integrity checks/refreshers Well chosen tasks/indicators MN RtI Center 29 Articles available with this module Kovaleski & Pedersen (2008). Best practices in data-analysis teaming. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best Practices in School Psychology, V, NASP Publications.(p. 115-129). Especially beginning on page 119 & case study on p.123 Kovaleski, Roble, & Agne. The RTI data analysis teaming process. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from RTI Action Network Web site: http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/Assessment/DataBased/ar/TeamProcess Stewart & Silberglitt. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best Practices in School Psychology, V, NASP Publications.(p. 225-242). Gibbons, K (2008). Necessary Assessments in RTI. Retrieved from http://www.tqsource.org/forum/documents/GibbonsPaper.doc on 6/26/09 NCRLD RTI Manual (2006). Chapter 1: School-wide screening Retrieved fromMN http://www.nrcld.org/rti_manual/pages/RTIManualSection1.pdf RtI Center 30 6/26/09 RTI Related Resources National Center on RTI RTI Action Network – links for Assessment and Universal Screening http://www.scred.k12.mn.us/ and click on link National Center on Student Progress Monitoring http://www.rtinetwork.org MN RTI Center http://www.rti4success.org/ http://www.studentprogress.org/ Research Institute on Progress Monitoring http://progressmonitoring.net/ MN RtI Center 31 RTI Related Resources (Cont’d) National Association of School Psychologists National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NADSE) www.nasdse.org Council of Administrators of Special Education www.nasponline.org www.casecec.org Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) toolkit and RTI materials http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/ta_responsiveness_in tervention.asp MN RtI Center 32 Key Sources for Reading Research, Assessment and Intervention… University of Oregon IDEA (Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement) Big Ideas of Reading Site Florida Center for Reading Research http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/ American Federation of Teachers Reading resources (what works 1999 publications) http://www.fcrr.org/ Texas Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts http://reading.uoregon.edu/ http://www.aft.org/teachers/pubs-reports/index.htm#reading National Reading Panel http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/ MN RtI Center 33 Recommended Sites with Multiple Resources Intervention Central- by Jim Wright (school psych from central NY) Center on Instruction http://www.interventioncentral.org http://www.centeroninstruction.org St. Croix River Education District http://scred.k12.mn.us MN RtI Center 34 Quiz (Cont’d) 1) How can Screening Data be linked to progress monitoring decisions and data? 2) What are the three ways target scores could be determined? 3) Students are generally considered high risk on norm-referenced Target Scores at or below _____ percentile. A.) > 50 B.) 15-49 C.) 25-50 D.) 0-14 MN RtI Center 35 4) List at least 2 different ways screening data can be used 5) The primary use of screening data is to _______. A.) identify students in need of additional instruction. B.) develop local norms. C.) send data to the state. D.) none of the above. MN RtI Center 36 Quiz (cont’d) 6) How can a school encourage the use of screening data once it is collected? MN RtI Center Note: The MN RTI Center does not endorse any particular product. Examples used are for instructional purposes only. Special Thanks: Thank you to Dr. Ann Casey, director of the MN RTI Center, for her leadership Thank you to Aimee Hochstein, Kristen Bouwman, and Nathan Rowe, Minnesota State University Moorhead graduate students, for editing, writing quizzes, and enhancing the quality of these training materials MN RtI Center