Transcript The RtI Data Dilemma

The RTI Data Dilemma:
Understanding and
Managing Critical
Assessment Information
2009 ASCD Convention
Orange County Convention Center, Room W308A
Orlando, FL
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Introductions
 Dr. Robert (Bob) Howell, Executive Director, Special
Education, RtI Administrator (Retired)
 Sandy Patton, Executive Director, Learning Resources
and Project Director, RtI (Retired)
 Dr. John Kerr, Deputy Superintendent. Curriculum and
Instruction, Colorado Springs School District 11
(Retired)
 Marcia Kaplan, Curriculum, Instruction and Technology
Consultant
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
2
Points to Take Home
 Teachers must know what data they
need to inform instruction
 Teachers must have ready and easy
access to the needed data
 Teachers must know how to use data to
inform instruction
 Fidelity of use/implementation is critical
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
3
What is RTI?
RTI is a system for educational redesign
based on a hierarchy of interventions
which are implemented to meet the
needs of students who demonstrate
underachievement in core academic
areas of literacy and math (Howell, Patton, &
Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention,)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
4
Another Definition of RTI
RtI is the practice of:
 providing high-quality instruction/intervention
matched to student needs
 using learning rate (and/or other outcomes)
over time and level of performance to make
important educational decisions (NASDSE, 2005 and
from Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 9)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
5
Learning Rate/Level of
Performance
 Learning Rate is referenced to a
student’s performance compared to
baseline rates and peer performance
 Level of Performance is referenced to the
student’s relative standing compared to
expected performance
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
6
RTI Data Dilemma
 Access to a variety of data & why data are
needed
 Screening and benchmarking must be valid,
reliable, & ACCESSIBLE
 Diagnostic & prescriptive assessments are
dependent on bullets 1 & 2
 Progress monitoring quality is only as good
as the data upon which it is founded
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
7
RTI Data Dilemma
cont’d
 Selection of interventions, fidelity of
usage & data collection are critical to
success
 Outcome assessments to measure
student progress against grade-level
expectation must be given
 All are dependent on a truly aligned
curriculum with instruction and
assessments
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
8
Activity
First, by yourself, take 3 minutes to
write down the 5 most critical issues
that get in the way of your district,
school, or classroom implementing the
data requirements for RTI.
When the facilitator says stop you will
group in triads and work to select the 3
most critical dilemmas or variables that
must be addressed. We will select 5
groups to report back.
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
9
What do we do with the data?
 Inform instruction
 Validate alignment of the curriculum
 Insure that we are meeting standards
 Determine if what is taught is learned
 Focus on progress monitoring
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
10
Types of Data…
 State and National
 Provides the ‘Big Picture’ of school or
district’s performance
 Helps identify root causes
 Benchmarking is the process of
assessing all students three times per
school year in reading, writing and
math (Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to
Intervention. Pg. 81)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
11
Types of Data
cont’d
 Benchmarking data…
Identifies individual and groups of
students with performance issues
Provides a screening process
Identifies needed instructional
strategies and curriculum
modification for school and/or district
as a whole
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
12
Types of Data cont’d
 Benchmarking data…
 Provides a process for diagnosing student
needs and prescribing interventions
 Progress Monitoring provides the
formative assessment link between
instruction and high stakes testing (Understanding Response to Intervention pg. 75)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
13
Types of Data
cont’d
 Progress monitoring must include
measures for district-wide progress,
grade-level progress, classroom
progress and individual student
progress
 Progress monitoring data…
 Must be aligned
 Must ensure that what is taught is learned
and what is learned is measured
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
14
Interventions
An intervention is a new strategy or
modification of instruction or behavior
management designed to help a
student or group of students improve
performance relative to a specific goal
(Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to
Intervention, pg. 57)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
15
Interventions
Interventions begin in the general
education classroom. Modifications,
including changing intervention
frequency, intensity and duration
until the student achieves success
(Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response
to Intervention pg. 59)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
16
Curriculum Alignment
RTI creates curriculum alignment
because of the heavy emphasis on
progress monitoring. Progress
monitoring puts into practice those
questions asked in a Professional
Learning Community (PLC) (Howell, Patton
& Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention
pg. 77)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
17
Four Critical PLC Questions
 What do students need to learn and be
able to do?
 How do we know if the students are
learning it?
 What will we do if students have not
learned it?
 What will we do if they have learned it?
(DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker & from Understanding Response to
Intervention pg. xviii)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
18
Progress Monitoring
Curriculum-based measurements
(CBMs) are quick and easy normed
assessments providing valuable data on
student learning. CBMS are inexpensive,
easy to use and quickly administered in
2 to 5 minutes (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention pgs. 77 78)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
19
Progress Monitoring
Probes enable teachers to monitor
student progress on a daily,
weekly, semimonthly or monthly
basis without loss of validity (Howell,
Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg
80)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
20
Progress Monitoring
CBMs…
 Determine a student’s individual
instructional level within the curriculum
 Establish long term goals and monitor
individuals and groups of students
 Assist teachers and Problem Solving
Teams in making decisions regarding
the impact of teaching on learning
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
21
Progress Monitoring
cont’d
CBMs…
 Measure the impact of interventions
 Measure the impact of the over-all
problem-solving process (Howell, Patton &
Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 80)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
22
RTI Assessment Process
High quality professional development
helps move from understanding and
using data to incorporating thoughtful,
targeted assessments as part of the
instructional process (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 82)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
23
RTI Assessment Process
 Short tests such as CBMs are administered to
obtain baseline data on student skills
 If the student learns at a slower pace or at a
lower level, the tests help the teacher
pinpoint problems
 Encourages the teacher to change methods
and materials to better meet student learning
needs (Colorado Springs School District 11, 2006)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
24
Role of Problem-Solving Team
Problem-Solving Teams (PSTs) use data
to discern current issues that
exacerbate failure, discover the root
cause or primary problem(s), and
create a continuous improvement
process to close the gap between a
child’s performance and grade level,
national norms or expected
achievement (Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding
Response to Intervention, pg 39)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
25
Actualizing RTI Data Activity
1. You will have an opportunity to look at some
real student data and analyze what the data
are telling you.
2. Use your triads and look these slides, we will
explain the key to you.
3. What are these data telling you. What if these
data represented an entire district, a school or
a group of kids. What would you do?
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
26
Actualizing RTI Data
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
27
Actualizing RTI Data
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
28
Actualizing RTI Data
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
29
Actualizing RTI Data
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
30
Actualizing RTI Data
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
31
Root Cause Analysis
Root Cause Analysis is an eight step
problem-solving process that focuses on
an ongoing problem-solving cycle rather
than a one time effort (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention , pg. 40)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
32
Root Cause Analysis Process
1. Define the problem based on
2.
3.
4.
5.
identification of a sentinel event
Gather additional data and evidence
Identify contributory issues
Delineate possible root causes
Develop solution recommendations for
the primary causes (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 41)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
33
Root Cause Analysis Process
cont’d
6. Implement solutions to eliminate or
diminish the causes
7. Retest solutions based on data
8. Review data from Steps 1-7 to
determine systemic prevention or
intervention strategies (Howell, Patton &
Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 41)
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
34
Root Cause Analysis Process
 Provides a well-defined system of
evaluation using student-based
assessments
 Applies measures to monitor what
educators are achieving with students
on a daily basis
 Guides staff in evaluating and acting on
the results of students’ work
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
35
Managing RTI Data
We strongly recommend the use of an
electronic data management system to
allow the classroom teacher and the
Problem Solving Teams to graph
student data without that component
becoming an overwhelming factor and
impeding the total RTI process.
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
36
Managing RTI Data
Requirements in a system…
 CBM probes that are normed and validated
 A wide variety of multi-grade and multi-
discipline probes
 Interoperability with student information
systems and other available systems
 Easy access for teachers
 Easy data entry and one data entry if
possible
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
37
Points to Take Home
 Teachers must know what data they
need to inform instruction
 Teachers must have ready and easy
access to the needed data
 Teachers must know how to use data to
inform instruction
 Fidelity of use/implementation is critical
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
38
Questions/Answers from
Question Cards
Contact Information:
Sandy Patton
[email protected]
or
Marcia Kaplan
[email protected]
Presentation Available at:
www.tecedge.net/presentations/The_RTI_Da
ta_Dilemma.ppt
http://www.ascd.org/conferences/acpresent
erupload.aspx
Resources
 www.nasdse.org
 www.nwrel.org/nwrcc/rti/
 www.ritap.org/rti/resources/web_resources.php
 www.interventioncentral.org
 www.autoskill.com/intervention/rti.php
 www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/RTI.aspx
 www.cssd11.k12.co.us/RTI/
 [email protected]
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
42
Research and References
Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004). Empirically
based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and
decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66-79.
Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New
York: Plenum Press.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. C., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of learning
disabilities: Research to practice. Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
43
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2006). Response to Intervention: Principles
and Strategies for Effective Instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Deno, S. (1985). “Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.”
Exceptional Children, 52, 219-684.
Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification. Minneapolis, MN:
Leadership Training Institute for Special Education.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted
education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K.,
& Shaywitz, S. E. (2002). Classification of Learning Difficulties: An Evidencebased Evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
44
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to intervention): Rethinking special
education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41,
99-108.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special
education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Howell. R.J., Patton, S. L., & Deiotte, M. T. (2008) Understanding Response to Intervention.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention
models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108-117.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation: An individual guide. New
York: Plenum Press.
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
45
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Kratochwill, T. R., Clements, M., A., & Kalamon, K. (in press). Reconsidering response to
intervention: Conceptual, methodological, and psychometric issues. In S. Jimmerson, M.
Burns, and A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.) The handbook of response to intervention. New York:
Springer Science, Inc.
Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S. N., & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Problem solving consultation. In A.
Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.). Best Practices. Washington, DC: National Association of
School Psychologists.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Bethesda, MD: Author.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention:
Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State
Directors of Special Education.
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
46
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Newell, M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (in press). Response to intervention: Cultural issues
and considerations. In S. Jimmerson, M. Burns, and A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.)
The handbook of response to intervention. New York: Springer Science, Inc.
Reschly, D. J., Tilly III, W. D., & Grimes, J. P. (1999). Special Education in
Transition: Functional Assessment and Non-categorical Programming.
Longmont, CO: Sorpis West.
Rosenfield, S., Silva, A., & Gravois, T. A. (in press). Bringing instructional
consultation to scale: Research and development of IC and IC teams. In W.
Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.) Handbook of research in school consultation:
Empirical foundations for the field. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral
consultation: An individual guide. New York: Plenum Press.
3/5/09
© Howell, Kerr, & Patton 2009
47
Thank You and Good Luck