Response To Intervention Summer Institute: Reading and RTI

1. Response To Intervention Summer Institute:Reading and RTI C. Lee Goss, M.S., LPE Psy.D. Pre-doctoral Intern University of Southern Maine

2. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 2 3-Day RTI Summer Institute Plan Day 1: Review of RTI, Benchmark Screening & Implementing Progress Monitoring Day 2: Data-Based Decision Making and Tier 2-3 Interventions Day 3: School-Wide Implementation of RTI

3. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 3 Day 1: Goals to Action Brief review of RTI & 3-Tier Model Review benchmark screening process using curriculum-based measures (CBM) Develop plan to implement progress monitoring procedures Begin Development of School/District RTI Implementation Action Plan Benchmark Screening Progress Monitoring

4. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 4 Day 1: Action Plan Acknowledgments Historical to Current RTI Influences Review of RTI & 3-Tier Model Review Role & Purpose of CBM Review of Benchmark Screening Process Organizing Benchmark Assessment Data Managing Data Reporting Data Reviewing Data

5. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 5 Day 1: Action Plan, Cont�d Progress Monitoring: The Logistics Who will collect the data? Deciding how often to collect data? Reporting Progress Monitoring Data Reviewing Progress Monitoring Data Small Group Action Plan Development

6. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 6 Acknowledgments Marcia Davidson, Ph.D. Rachel Brown-Chidsey, Ph.D. Mark Steege, Ph.D. RTI & research-based reading instruction is built on a foundation of years of research, professional expertise, and leadership (e.g., Dan Reschly, Ph.D., David Tilley, Ph.D., Stan Deno, Ph.D., Mark Shinn, Ph.D, Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D. Joseph Torgeson, Ph.D., Barbara Foorman, Ph.D.)

7. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 7 Historical Context: Why RTI? NCLB 2001 & IDEIA 2004 Federal Policies Evidence of over-identification of children as disabled, particularly in mild disabilities (i.e., LD) Research shows that many children identified for special education services will respond to research based instruction and research based early interventions RTI procedures offer �well-child� prevention-focused methods for education.

8. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 8 Current Research Statistics Nationally < 35% of 4th graders are proficient readers ~18% of the student pop in Maine is served in special education, the majority w/ mild disabilities (e.g., LD) We are one of the very highest states in terms of students identified in special education.

9. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 9 NRC Reading Research Long-Term Research shows: 75% of the students who are not reading on grade level by 3rd grade never master functional literacy skills, (NRP, NRC). Most children w/ mild disabilities, especially LD, are not even identified until 3rd grade, by which time it is often too late to close the gap, (Matthew Effect).

10. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 10 Research on RTI Research shows reductions in SLD child counts after RTI methods implemented (Marston, et al 2003, O�Connor, 2003). Tilly (2003) reported significant reduction in primary grade special ed referrals when RTI used for early intervention programming. Studies show that not all students will be successful with RTI alone; those who still struggle will need to receive special education services.

11. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 11 RTI and Identification of LD Copious studies have shown the inaccuracy of IQ score-achievement test discrepancy scores for documenting the presence of a specific learning disability (SLD) RTI methods for documenting the presence of SLD are at least as accurate as discrepancy methods and automatically include effective instruction

12. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 12 Historical Summary The number of special education students has increased significantly since 1975, PL 94-142: Education of the Handicapped Act Both NCLB and IDEIA 2004 specifically call for the use of RTI as a way to ensure the use of research- based instruction and interventions in schools RTI is a Prevention/Early Intervention model versus a �Wait to Fail� Model

13. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 13 National Scene: State RTI Leaders Iowa--Heartland Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, Utah, Ohio, Idaho, Texas & Alaska have also been recognized as RTI/Research-Based Reading Instruction leaders New Hampshire (PBIS)

14. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 14 Rationale for RTI NCLB requires schools to use research-based reading programs, measure student progress, & initiate research based early interventions Clear evidence that RTI methods help promote better interventions and optimize outcomes for all students RTI model focuses on prevention & early intervention

15. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 15 Rationale for RTI (Cont�d) RTI model allows for use of standard assessment practices as well as individual problem-solving RTI helps to build a bridge between general and special education Focus is on exit as much as entrance Matches our belief about education for all children

16. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 16 What is Response To Intervention? Response to Intervention (RTI): Early intervention and prevention model that begins in general education Foundation of research-based instruction and interventions (RBIs) with systematic progress monitoring and data analysis for all children within general education

17. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 17 RTI is a Well-Child Prevention Model Prevention efforts to foster educational success for all students in school Incorporates regular screening of ALL children to determine who is at risk for developing academic and/or behavioral problems Provides strategic interventions for children determined at-risk in the early stages of a problem Acknowledges that some children will have serious and persistent problems that will require intensive support

18. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 18

19. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 19 RTI is a Well-Child Program for Education Health Care Infant screenings Annual check-ups Comparison to developmental standards Immunizations Use of research-based standard protocol treatments for common problems Hypothesis testing as part of evaluation Referral for specialist care if needed Education Standardized Kindergarten screening Three yearly �check-ups� Comparison to local and national benchmarks Use of research-based instruction for general education instruction Hypothesis testing as part of curriculum and assessment practices Referral to special education only if progress in other instruction is not made

20. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 20

21. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 21 RTI 3-Tier Academic & Behavior Model

22. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 22 Paradigm Shift Traditional identification model viewed as a �Wait to Fail� Model based on a Deficit Model of assessment and intervention RTI is designed to be an early intervention/prevention model based on a a Risk Model of early identification of potential risk, early intervention, and on-going analysis of response to intervention

23. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 23 RTI Prevention Model Prevention-based model Primary�before any problems exist Secondary�at the first sign of problems Tertiary�to reduce effects of problems Includes three elements: Effective instruction Data recording Systematic review of data to inform instruction

24. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 24 Core Features of RTI Process High quality, scientific, research-based instruction and behavioral support in general education Multiple tiers that identify and increase intensity of scientific research-based interventions based on individual student needs Continuous progress monitoring w/ research-based measures sensitive to short-term student progress Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)

25. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 25 RTI: 3 Tier Model RTI is generally viewed as a fluid, multi-tier model often described as a 3-Tier Model All 3 Tiers occur in general education The level of intervention and individualized assistance is determined by the student response to academic/behavioral instruction Frequent progress monitoring and data analysis is essential to determine the student response to the instruction/intervention

26. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 26 3-Tier RTI Model Tier 1 (Primary) Scientifically based general education instruction with regular progress monitoring (Universal: 3-4x/yr) Tier 2 (Secondary) Intensive small-group scientifically based instruction with frequent progress monitoring (PM: Weekly) Tier 3 (Tertiary) Intensive individualized research-based instruction with frequent progress monitoring (PM: Daily-Weekly) Comprehensive evaluation for special education services using a problem-solving model

27. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 27

28. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 28 How the Tiers Work Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or behavioral Greater the tier, greater support and �severity� Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that results in a positive response to intervention Continue until student strengthens response significantly Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level) Determine the relationship between sustained growth and sustained support.

30. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 30 Tier 1: Review of Benchmark Screening Process & CBM Assessments History of CBM Purpose of CBM The Data Tell The Story Common Initial Stats & Examples

31. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 31 But we�re already administering a lot of assessments!

32. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 32 Functions of Assessments: MEAs & NWEAs: Summative MEAs & NWEAs are Knowledge or Content Assessments (Untimed) MEAs & NWEAs are not timed: They do not measure fluency of academic skills They measure acquired knowledge of subject given enough time Universal Screen Only

33. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 33 Characteristics of Summative Evaluations USUALLY appropriate to measure knowledge or content acquisition (given enough time). NOT useful for decisions teachers need to make every day: For whom do I need to individualize instruction or find more intensive instructional programs? How do I organize my classrooms for instructional grouping? How do I know that my teaching is �working� for each student so that I can make changes in instruction when necessary? NOT very useful to administrators who must make decisions about allocating instructional resources, especially in a preventative or responsive model.

34. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 34 Functions of Assessments: CBM: Formative CBMs are Skill Proficiency Assessments Timed: Thus they measure fluency, or automaticity/proficiency, of academic skills Fluency does not mean �speed� or �race� CBM At-Risk Benchmarks are Low (25%) Academic skills are foundation for future academic achievement Research shows CBM performance is predictive of future state assessment performance First grade ORF is predictive of 4th grade reading achievement performance on state assessment (Davidson, 2007)

35. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 35 Characteristics of Formative Assessments: CBM Brief Drawn directly from curricula and skills needed to fluently master content Dynamic (Sensitive to small increments of progress) Universal Screen: Multi-form yearly benchmarks to determine instructional status Progress Monitoring: Multi-forms Inform current instructional level

36. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 36 History of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) In 1970s, coinciding with PL 94-142, a group of researchers in Minnesota began developing assessment measures sensitive to small increments of student progress in response to instruction These measures were refined over time and are now known as curriculum-based measurement (CBM)

37. Kenya: A Global Perspective

38. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 38 Key Questions: How can we learn more quickly that a child is falling behind in development? How can we use that information to guide what we do in our programs? How do we know if what we are doing is improving a child�s trajectory?

39. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 39 Identifying the �vital signs� of a student�s educational health The first thing we have to decide is what to measure

40. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 40 CBM: Vital Signs of Education CBM provides educators data on the vital signs of a student�s educational health ORF significant indicator and predictor of future academic achievement ORF equivalent to blood pressure screening for medical health

41. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 41 Purpose of CBMs? To provide educators with an efficient means to evaluate the effectiveness of a student�s instructional program Why is this so important? Research shows that instruction & intervention is not �one size fits all� CBM helps determine which interventions are the most effective for individual students

42. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 42 RTI: Not One Size Fits All A teaching method might work with all of the students some of the time�.. And some of the students all of the time� But a method doesn�t work with all of the students, all of the time. Need to try a minimum of 2 research-based interventions to determine response to Tier 2 Recommend 3-5 evidence-based interventions per curricula area

43.

44. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 44 Curriculum-Based Measures CBM was explicitly designed to be: Standardized (Training required so always administered the same way for accurate, reliable & valid results) Show skill fluency (thus they are timed) Drawn directly from the curriculum and skills students were learning in school Brief w/ multi-forms to monitor progress Sensitive to individual student growth over short periods of time (ex: weekly/daily) Able to inform the next instructional steps Over time CBM contributed to the data demonstrating the efficacy of RTI

45. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 45 RTI Initial CBM Benchmark Stats Initial Benchmark At-Risk Stats are often a surprise Typical Initial Benchmark Results: (~30 � 50%) At-Risk High Risk Populations (e.g., ELL (~70%-80%) Reflect national stats and high Title 1, Special Education, and drop out stats (high school and college)

47. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 47 Organizing Benchmark Assessment Data RTI Team/SAT Team/Grade Level Team Collecting Benchmark Data Managing Data Reporting Data Reviewing Data

48. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 48 RTI Team Members Administrator (Principal) General Education Teachers (Grade Level Rep) Special Education Teachers (Grade Level Rep) Specialists Literacy Specialist Speech & Language Pathologist Counselor/Social Worker School Psychologist Technology/Data Management Specialist

49. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 49 RTI Team Professional Development RTI Team members need professional development and/or expertise in RTI 3-Tier Model Selection of Research Based Instruction & Interventions RTI Assessments: CBM Data Collection, Analysis, & Interpretation Treatment Integrity

50. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 50 RTI Team Role RTI school-based needs assessment RTI implementation begins Tier 1 w/ RBI core instruction Implement RTI Tier 1�Tier 3 strategically & systematically (Action Plan) Ensure & Monitor Treatment Integrity Monitor & Review RTI CBM data Tier 1 � Tier 3 to determine efficient and effective RTI evidence-based curricula and interventions Data-Based Decisions Tier 1 - 3

51. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 51 Select/Obtain Benchmark Assessment Materials A variety of published materials exist AIMSweb DIBELS Intervention Central Read Naturally Materials need to match curriculum

52. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 52 Benefits of Published/Computer CBM Data Program Resources Research-Based Reliable & Valid Benchmark Norms Charts/Graphs/Descriptive Data at your fingertips when enter benchmark and/or progress monitoring scores District School Grade Level Classroom Student Parent Reports

53. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 53 Train Benchmark Staff Train all staff assigned to collect benchmark data Training should include schedule, samples (video), materials, and opportunities to practice to establish inter-rater reliability (7-10x) The most efficient people to collect data are the teachers Need help from others for individually administered items (RTI Team/CBM Assessment Team)

54. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 54 Assessment follows Instruction

56. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 56 RTI Step 2 Collect benchmarks of all students� performance 3 times during the school year: Fall (September 15 � October 15) Winter (January 1 � 31) Spring (May 1 � 31) See Forms 4 and 5 and Examples 3 and 4

57. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 57 Benchmarks as Universal Assessment By collecting academic performance data on every student 3 times a year we quickly know who needs help These data help determine which students will need tier 2 instruction and assessment It is the application of primary prevention steps in education

58. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 58

59. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 59

60. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 60 Collect and Organize Data Have a day or time window when benchmarks will be collected RTI/Grade Level Data Collection Teams Have teachers report data back in a uniform way Either fill out a master list for the class or enter the scores into a computer Have a firm deadline for reporting scores Computers help with this! Having teachers enter their own data is most efficient and helps them know which kids need help

61. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 61 Managing RTI Data Recommendations Administrative Leadership Key RTI Team/Grade Level Team Data/Technology RTI Team Member AIMSweb/DIBELS Data Collection Resources AIMSweb (3-Rs: K-8) Fee for CBM & Data Reports/Graphs ($5/student) Manage DIBELS Data DIBELS (Literacy PreK-6: Free to Download) Data Reports/Graphs ($1/student)

62. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 62 RTI Step 3 Rank students by benchmark scores Identify which students scored below the benchmark target(s) Those students below the target are at-risk for significant school difficulties Compare the at-risk student list with teacher judgment and other indicators of students� progress See Form 6 and Example 5

63. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 63 What is a Target Score? Benchmark targets are score goals for all students They are criterion-based because they are predictive of later success in school Example, students who can read 40 or more words in one minute by the end of first grade are very likely to be successful in later grades Can be set nationally and locally National targets for reading have been established from DIBELS and AIMSweb data

64. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 64

65. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 65 Tier 2: Progress Monitoring Logistics Instruction IS Intervention Progress Monitor At-Risk Students Progress monitoring ensures that students are receiving appropriate interventions The data tell the story Skill Level Type/Level of Intervention Needed Response to Intervention

66. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 66

67. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 67 Weekly Progress Monitoring Recommended Usually, progress data are collected at least once per week When collected weekly, the assessment can be very brief because the weekly scores will accumulate to show reliability Anyone who has been trained to administer the outcome measure can collect the data

68. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 68 Reviewing & Interpreting Data RTI/Grade Level Team Meeting Infrastructure needed to review & interpret weekly progress monitoring data Need to have at least 3 data points before engaging in interpretation Data interpretation steps include: Checking reliability Checking level changes (progress?) Checking slope (rate of progress?)

69. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 69 RTI and Meeting Student Needs RTI is designed to meet students� specific instructional needs in a time-sensitive manner Progress Monitoring Data are collected only on those students showing some risk level If a student does not respond to an intervention, another intervention is tried to meet the student�s learning needs

70. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 70 Potential Benefits of RTI Eliminate a �wait to fail� model and implement an early intervention/prevention model Research has shown that many children will respond to research based instruction and research based early intervention RTI helps to build a bridge between general and special education by offering data-based decision-making tools and opportunities for collaboration and communication to support successful learning experiences for all students

71. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 71 Potential Benefits of RTI, Cont�d Early Intervention can reduce the number of students unnecessarily referred for special education services RTI student progress monitoring techniques (CBM) provide more instructionally relevant information due to sensitivity to small increments of progress than traditional �snap-shot� assessments

72. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 72 Longitudinal Intervention Research

73. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 73 Summary CBM data have been shown to be highly effective for collecting and reviewing individual student progress toward learning goals Data collected during the intervention show whether the instruction is working If a student�s data show lack of desired response, another intervention is needed

74. Example of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Data

75. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 75 Progress Monitoring Data Analysis Data Analysis: Student has met or exceeded January DIBELS BM Goals in mid-November Recommendation: Return to Tier 1 Research Based Literacy Classroom Instruction Universal Benchmarks at Grade Level

77. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 77 Progress Monitoring Data Analysis Data Analysis: Student is below January DIBELS BM Goals Trendline indicates student is not likely to meet target January DIBELS NWF benchmark Recommendation: Modify/Intensify Tier 2 Intervention Begin RM Small Group Intervention Continue weekly progress monitoring and analyze data in 3 weeks to determine If student is making adequate progress If adequate progress, continue Tier 2 until benchmark goals are mastered If student is not making expected progress initiate Tier 3

78. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 78 RTI/CBM Resources Brown-Chidsey, R. & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to Intervention: Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice. New York: Guilford Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford AIMSweb www.aimsweb. com DIBELS www.dibels.uoregon.edu Intervention Central: CBM Warehouse www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/ cbmwarehouse.shtml National Center on Student Progress Monitoring www.studentprogress.org Research Institute on Progress Monitoring progressmonitoring.org

79. � C. Lee Goss, 2008 79 Day 1: Small Group TaskBegin to Develop Action Plan Tier 1: Benchmark Screening Action Plan Identify CBMs & Data Collection Plan(3x/yr) Data Management Plan Data Review & Reporting Plan Tier 1 Core Status & Needs Assessment Tier 2: Progress Monitoring Logistics Action Plan Data Collection�CBMs? Who? How Often? Data Management Plan Data Review & Reporting Plan