School Based Leadership Team
Year Two, Day Two
A collaborative project between the Florida Department of Education and the University of South Florida
FloridaRtI.usf.edu
Advance Organizer
Data & Homework Review
Tier 1 Data Indicating Tier 2 Needs
Tier 2 Defined & Characterized
Standard Treatment Protocol
Strategies for Identifying Tier 2/Standard Protocol Needs
Tier 2 and the K-12 Reading Plan
Decision Making at Tier 2
Tier 2 Exercises - Determining Needs, Grouping Students
Homework
Tier I Problem Identification
Worksheet Feedback Activity
1. What components of Tier I Problem Identification
did your School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT)
master?
2. For which components did your SBLT have more
difficulty?
3. How much Tier I Problem-Solving do you believe
is occurring at your school?
4. What additional training and practice do staff at
your school need to be able to engage in Tier I
Problem Identification?
Homework Review
What descriptions did you develop for:
 Facilitator
 Timekeeper
 Recorder
Who did you assign to each and why?
Tier I Problem Solving
Implementation Activity
1.
How much progress occurred in Tier I and II implementation
of PS/RtI practices as evidenced by permanent products
(i.e., documentation) from data meetings
2.
How consistent are the data from the Tier I/II Critical
Components Checklist with your team’s perception of how
much implementation occurred?
3.
What are some potential reasons for differences in the
team’s perception versus what was reflected in permanent
products?
4.
Based on the data you’ve been provided and your
discussions today, what are some implications for your
School-Based Leadership Team when you return to your
school?
Tier I Data Examples
Monroe
Monroe
Clay
Challenges for Behavior
• There are no established benchmarks
for behavior.
• Data systems for behavior are in short
supply.
• Decision rules for behavior are unclear
Challenges for Behavior
• Many interventions for behavior problems are
less well-researched than interventions for
academic issues.
• Most schools are already utilizing Tier 2
interventions, but are they using a process for
identification and progress monitoring?
• Intervention integrity may be more challenging.
Decision Points: Tier 1
Universal/Core
• If score on Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ) is less than 70, then
revisit SWPBS or look at Classroom
• If our discipline data indicate an increase in ODR/ISS/OSS,
then revisit SWPBS
• If score on Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ) is greater than 70,
and data show a increasing trend in ODR/ISS/OSS, then revisit
SWPBS or look at Classroom
• If score on Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ) is greater than 70
and data show a decreasing trend in ODR/ISS/OSS, then look
at data to determine if need training at Targeted Group and/or
Individual level PBS
Decision Points: Tier 1/2
Classroom
• If most of ODRs (over 50%) are coming from many classrooms,
•
•
•
•
then revisit SWPBS application in all classrooms
If a few classrooms are responsible for the majority of ODRs, then
look at Classroom PBS using the Classroom Consultation Guide
If score on Benchmarks of Quality (BOQ) is less than 70, then
revisit SWPBS or look at Classroom PBS using the Classroom
Consultation Guide
If our discipline data indicate an increase in ODR/ISS/OSS and
most of the referrals are coming from many classrooms, then
revisit SWPBS application in all classrooms
If a classroom has received support, the interventions were done
with fidelity and the behavior of the student has not improved, then
consider Tier 2 supports for the student
Identifying Students in Need of
Tier 2 Supports
•
•
•
•
•
Office Discipline Referrals
Nomination Process
Minor/Classroom Referral Forms
EBD referrals
Parent nominations
Identifying Students of
Concern
• 2-3 times/year teachers “nominate” and rank
students based on behaviors of concern
• Identify top 3 students
 Externalizing
 Internalizing
Ranking
•Rank top 3 externalizing and top 3 internalizing students
•Check “YES” if personally taught expectations to the student
•Check “YES” if personally given a SW-PBS reward to student
Externalizing
Academic
Concerns
Personally Taught
Expectations
Personally Given
SW Reward
1.
________________
______ Yes
______ Yes
______ Yes
2.
________________
______ Yes
______ Yes
______ Yes
3.
________________
______ Yes
______ Yes
______ Yes
Suggestions
• Individual Teacher Approach
 Every teacher identifies top 3 internalizers/3
externalizers
 Need to prioritize students
• Team/Grade Level Approach
 Each team/grade level identifies top 3 internalizers/3
externalizers
 May not need to prioritize students
• Prioritizing Students
 Based on data collected (see Student Identification
Worksheet blank Problem Solving Guide, pg 2)
Summary of Identifying
Students
• ODRs and nomination processes are easy and effective
• Nominations should occur at least 2 times a year but with
•
•
•
•
opportunities for new students or situations
School-based teams or individual teachers may nominate
One school team member will summarize data from
nomination process and ODR data
Grade level teams may still wish to prioritize students in
need of limited resources
Minor/Classroom Forms
• For more information: flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu
Tier 2 Defined &
Characterized
Tier
Tier
Tier 13
2
Forapprox.
Approx
5%of
ofof
For
GOAL:
100%
15%
Students
students
students
pass
benchmark
Tier 1 Core
assessments
Tier 1 Core
++
Supplemental
Supplemental
+
…to pass benchmark
Tier 1 effective if at least
80% are meeting
benchmark assessments
with only access to Core.
Intensive Individual
assessments.
Instruction
Tier 2 Effective if at least 70…toofpass
benchmark
80%
students
improve
performance
(i.e., gap is
assessments.
closing towards benchmark
and/or
progress ifmonitoring
Tier 3 Effective
there is
standards).
progress (i.e., gap closing)
towards benchmark
and/or progress
monitoring goals.
Vicks Analogy
Tier 2 Defined
• Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP)
 “Tier Two is small-group supplemental
instruction (ratio of up to one teacher to five
students, 1:5) provided by a specialist, tutor,
or special education teacher to students who
fail to make adequate progress in the general
classroom. Tier Two includes programs,
strategies, and procedures designed and
employed to supplement, enhance, and
support Tier One instruction to all students.”
Tier 2 Characterized
• Resources = Knowledge, Strategies,
•
•
•
Programs, Time, Materials, and Personnel.
DOES NOT have to be a packaged program
produced by a publishing company.
But it should be research-validated.
OSEP:
(http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/ta_responsiveness_intervention.asp)
 “Tier Two includes programs, strategies, and
procedures designed and employed to
supplement, enhance, and support Tier One
instruction to all students. “
Tier 2 Characterized
• In coordination with and supplemental to healthy Tier 1
•
•
instruction
Available in general education settings
Increasingly Intensified Service:






Instruction and Assessments matched to student needs
More time to practice/increased practice items
Increase Academic Engaged Time (AET)
Focused/Narrow skills or content
Direct Instruction of content
Increased frequency of progress monitoring/assessment
• Provided as soon as students identified as “at-risk”
through benchmark/screening assessments.
Tier Two Approaches to
Interventions
• Problem Solving
• Standard Treatment Protocol
• Blended approach
Standard Protocol approach
• Standard, research-based
interventions
• Small groups, similar needs
• Common skill deficits,
predictable patterns
Standard Protocol approach
• Select from “intervention bank”
• Often “scripted” interventions
• Typically 3-5x/week, 20-40
minutes duration
• Supported by PS team
Standard Protocol approach
• Screen all students
• Identify students needing support
in given skill area/similar needs
• Provide pre-determined, researchbased interventions
• Monitor progress
Problem Solving approach
• Screen all students
• Identify students needing support
• Explore reasons for problem
occurrence
• Develop/implement interventions
based on individual needs
• Monitor progress
Blended approach
• Screen all students
• Identify students needing additional
support - minimal problem analysis
• Implement pre-determined, researchbased interventions (standard protocol)
• Monitor progress
• If poor response, return to problem solving
steps to customize intervention
Problem Solving vs.
Standard Protocol?
• Both designed to reach targets/goals
• Both support student learning
Biggest differences:
• Tier Two
• Level of Problem Analysis
So…
IF: Both problem solving and standard
protocol are part of larger, Problem Solving
System…
THEN: RtI-Problem Analysis and
RtI-Standard Protocol
may be less confusing, more accurate
(Christ, Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005)
RtI-Problem Analysis
• Use assessment process to
• Identify interventions that are
• Linked to problem occurrence
and that
• Have high likelihood of
successful outcome
RtI-Standard Protocol
• Minimal assessment used to
• Group students by similar need
• Administer common, predetermined interventions with
proven effectiveness
Comparison of Tier 2 Options
Standard
Treatment
Protocol
Blended
Standard
Protocol
In-Depth
Problem
Solving
Tier 2 Protocol
UNIVERSAL SCREENING
(Ensure Healthy Tier 1 + ID Students AtRisk)
Problem
Identification
Problem
Analysis
Intervention
Evaluation –
Response to
Intervention
None
All less proficient
students in same
content area get
same balanced
research-validated
intervention
Monitor
2 - 4 times
per month
Utilize data to group
students based upon
a target skill need and
provide appropriate
Standard Protocol
Students with similar
deficit skills and
similar learning
characteristics
provided same
protocol
Monitor
2 – 4 times
per month
Non-proficient
students assessed
further to identify
unique needs and
grouped by similar
skill needs.
Group Needs/Skill
intervention
customized to match
unique learning needs
of group
Monitor
2 times
per month
Standard Treatment Protocol
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Problem ID
Problem
Analysis
Instruction/
Intervention
EvaluationResponse to
Intervention
Individual
Diagnostic
Individualized
Intensive
All Students at
a grade level
Intensive
Supplemental
Universal
Screening
Fall
Winter Spring
1-5%
5-10%
None
Small Group, all less
than proficient
students get the
same, balanced,
research-validated
instruction
Core
80-90%
None
Continue
With
Core
Instruction
2x weekly
2-4 times/month
Grades
Classroom
Assessments
Yearly ITBS/ITED
Blended Standard Treatment Protocol
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Problem ID
Problem
Analysis
Instruction/
Intervention
EvaluationResponse to
Intervention
Individual
Diagnostic
Individualized
Intensive
All Students at
a grade level
Intensive
Supplemental
Universal
Screening
Fall
Winter Spring
1-5%
5-10%
Group
data used
identify target
skill
Small
Group
Differentiated
By Skill
2 times/month
Core
80-90%
None
weekly
Continue
With
Core
Instruction
Grades
Classroom
Assessments
Yearly ITBS/ITED
In-Depth Problem Solving Tier 2 Protocol
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Problem ID
Problem
Analysis
Instruction/
Intervention
EvaluationResponse to
Intervention
Individual
Diagnostic
Individualized
Intensive
All Students at
a grade level
Intensive
Supplemental
Universal
Screening
Fall
Winter Spring
1-5%
weekly
5-10%
Individual
Diagnostic
Core
80-90%
None
Group
Strategic
customized to
unique skill needs
Continue
With
Core
Instruction
2 times/month
Grades
Classroom
Assessments
Yearly ITBS/ITED
Standard ProtocolAdvantages
• People know which intervention to use
• People are trained on only a few
interventions
• Scripted interventions easier to
implement
• Proven track record in schools
Standard ProtocolAdvantages
• More likely to be delivered with fidelity
• Students receive immediate help
• More efficient Problem Solving teams
Standard ProtocolDisadvantages
• No single strategy can address all deficits
• Not applicable for some problems
• Increased dependency on correct Problem
Identification, Problem Analysis,
Intervention Design
• May require changes to schedule for small
groups
• Less team Problem-Solving
Intervention Banks
• School teams identify research-based
interventions designed for commonly
occurring problems
• Identify school-based resources
look at “best fit” for
school/teachers/students
• Everyone uses same intervention(s)
• Saves time
Example:
• 1st grade teacher analyzes Phonological
•
•
•
•
Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS)
data
20% of class below grade-level standard
Particular difficulty with Phonemic
Awareness
Confers with other 1st grade teachers
Decide to supplement literacy curriculum
for students (12) not meeting standard
Example (cont.):
• 12 students-Standard Protocol intervention
--Road to the Code
• 4x/week, 20 min., classroom teacher
• Targeted skills: initial and final phoneme
segmentation and blending of 2-3
phonemes
• Progress monitored with weekly probes
Example (cont.)
After 5 weeks:
• 2 students met target, exited from
intervention
• 6 students on track to meet goal at end of
ten weeks
• 4 students demonstrated limited progress,
their interventions were intensified
Example (cont.):
After 10 weeks:
• 8 students met target
• 2 students did not demonstrate progress,
were brought to Problem Solving team
Data-based Decisions
Data source(s) should:
• provide sufficient information to select
appropriate Standard Protocol.
• allow you to group students with similar
needs
• depend on the Standard Protocols you
have in place.
Discussion…
In the absence of in-depth
Problem Analysis, what data
might allow you to make
decisions about grouping
students for Standard Protocol
interventions?
Intervention
Infrastructure
Using Existing Data to Predict
Intervention Needs
• Previous referral history predicts future referral
history
• How do we interpret teacher referrals?
• Previous intervention history predicts future
intervention history
• How do we use this information to establish an
infrastructure for change?
Data-Driven Infrastructure:
Establishing a Building Baseline
• Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years
 Identifies problems teachers feel they do not have the
skills/support to handle
 Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the staff, the
resources currently in place and the “history” of what
constitutes a referral in that building
 Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years
 Identifies focus of Professional Development Activities AND
potential Tier II and III interventions
 Present data to staff. Reinforces “Need” concept
Data-Driven Infrastructure:
Establishing a Building Baseline
• Assess current “Supplemental
Interventions”
 Identify all students receiving supplemental
interventions
 For those interventions, identify
• Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction, etc)
• Duration (minutes/week)
• Provider
 Aggregate
• Identifies instructional support types in building
• This constitutes Tier II and III intervention needs
Data-Driven Infrastructure:
Establishing a Building Baseline
• Identify current progress monitoring assessment
practices
 Determine if they meet needs/criteria
 Strengthen with additional methods, if necessary
• Identify how data are used, organized and
interpreted currently
 Determine how to use technology to support
Three Tiered Model of School Supports:
Example of an Infrastructure Resource Inventory
Behavioral Systems
Academic Systems
Tier 3: Comprehensive and Intensive Interventions
Individual Students or Small Group (2-3)
Reading: Scholastic Program, Reading,Mastery, ALL,
Soar to Success, Leap Track, Fundations
Tier 2: Strategic Interventions
Students that don’t respond to the core curriculum
Reading: Soar to Success, Leap Frog, CRISS
strategies, CCC Lab Math: Extended Day
Writing: Small Group, CRISS strategies, and “Just
Write Narrative” by K. Robinson
Tier 1: Core Curriculum
All students
Reading: Houghton Mifflin
Math: Harcourt
Writing: Six Traits Of Writing
Learning Focus Strategies
1-5%
1-5%
5-10%
5-10%
Students
80-90%
Tier 3: Intensive Interventions
Individual Counseling, FBA/BIP
Teach, Reinforce, and Prevent (TRP)
Assessment-based
Intense, durable procedures
Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions
Some students (at-risk)
Small Group Counseling
Parent Training (Behavior & Academic)
Bullying Prevention Program
FBA/BIP Classroom Management
Techniques, Professional Development
Small Group Parent Training ,Data
Tier 1: Universal Interventions
80-90% All settings, all students
Committee, Preventive, proactive strategies
School Wide Rules/ Expectations Positive
Reinforcement System (Tickets & 200 Club)
School Wide Consequence System School
Wide Social Skills Program, Data (Discipline,
Surveys, etc.) Professional Development
(behavior)
Classroom Management Techniques,Parent
Training
Modified Core, Strategic, Intensive
Resource Maps - Simmons, Kame'enui
Modified Core, Strategic, Intensive
Resource Maps - Simmons, Kame'enui
Tiers of Resources - Reading
Tier 3: INTENSIVE INDIVIDUAL Interventions
Individual Students
Assessment-based
High Intensity
Of longer duration
Tier 2: TARGETED GROUP Interventions
Some students (at-risk)
High efficiency
Rapid response
Tier 1: Core Academic Instruction; UNIVERSAL Supports, Screening and Interventions
All Students and Preventive/Proactive
(Cruz, 2008)
Group Discussion:
• What resources exist in your school/district
that could be used in delivering Standard
Protocol interventions?
• Where can you look for additional
resources?
• How do you determine “best fit” between
Standard Protocol interventions and your
students/teachers/school?
RtI and the
K-12 Reading Plan
Don’t reinvent the wheel
“The guidelines provided for districts,
schools, principals, and teachers within the
K-12 Comprehensive Research-Based
Reading Plan are aligned with the most
important goals of the Problem/Solving
Response to Intervention (RtI)
approach.”
(2008-09 K-12 Reading Plan Guidance)
“Common Denominator”
PS / RtI
Florida’s Formula for
Success
6 + 4 + ii + iii =
No Child Left Behind
www.justreadflorida.com/docs/6A-6-053.pdf
Translation
ii (Initial and Differentiated Instruction) =
Core Instruction
iii (Immediate Intensive Intervention) =
Intensive, Tier 3 Instruction
FAQ
“Is differentiated instruction considered core or
supplemental?”
Differentiated
Sounds like…
SUPPLEMENTAL
Differentiated instruction:
• Reinforces skill and strategies learned in
whole group lesson (integrated tiers)
• Reinforces skills based on students’
instructional needs (strategic instruction)
• Targets each student’s individual level
(intensified instruction)
Class TDI
Report
73
©2009 Florida Department of Education
©2009 Florida Department of Education
73
Class Detail TDI
reportHandout 5
Decision Making at Tier 2
Making Decisions at Tier 2
An Overview
• What are you going to use to monitor
•
•
•
•
progress?
How often will you monitor progress?
How will you measure integrity of
interventions provided?
How will data be analyzed/displayed?
What decision options are available?
Collecting Data at Tier 2
• Basic types of PM:
 General Outcome Measures (GOMs); e.g.,
DIBELS/Curriculum-Based Measurement
 Mastery Measurement (e.g., Precision Teaching)
 Curriculum-based Assessment (e.g., finding
instructional levels)
 Resources:
http://www.studentprogress.org/chart/chart.asp
http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/Assessment
• Two functions to progress monitoring
 Assess student performance
 Evaluate effectiveness of interventions
Frequency of Progress
Monitoring
• Varies:
 Weekly
 Bi-weekly
 Monthly
• Matched to student needs
• General rule: More intense the problem(i.e., size of
•
gap), the more frequent we should assess student
performance and intervention effectiveness
More frequent assessment allows for quickest decision
making
 i.e., how soon can reliable trendline be established?
• If using Uniform Standard Protocol then more frequent
is preferred (e.g., 2 x month).
Variables Influencing Frequency of PM
• Infrastructure Variables:




Who is available to collect this data?
What materials are available to support PM?
How does schedule affect PM activities?
What assessments are being used? (Who is trained to use
them?)
 Where will students be assessed?
• Intervention Variables
 Uniform Standard approach ?
 Diagnostic Standard approach?
• Student Variables:
 How large is the gap between students and performance
goals?
 How often are students accessing Tier 2 supports?
Measuring Integrity of Standard
Protocol
• Why is this important and how will integrity
be measured?
 Allow for decisions to be made about
effectiveness of intervention.
 Was plan followed as designed by team?
 Was Standard Protocol implemented as
designed?
Intervention Integrity Decisions
Evidence based intervention linked to
verified hypothesis planned
Evidence based intervention
implemented
Student
Outcomes (SO)
Assessed
NEED to measure Treatment
Integrity.
Treatment
Integrity (TI)
Assessed
Continue Intervention
Data-based
Decisions
From Lisa Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008 NASP Convention
Implement strategies to promote
treatment integrity
Modify/change Intervention
Measuring Integrity of Standard
Protocol
• How will integrity be measured?
• Documentation?
 Ex. Intervention Documentation Worksheet
Intervention Documentation Worksheet
Measuring Integrity of Standard
Protocol
• How will integrity be measured?
• Documentation?
 Ex. Intervention Documentation Worksheet
 Develop based on the unique needs of building and
student needs.
• Remember – Documentation must also include:




Who is responsible?
What will be done?
When will it occur?
How will data be shared?
Graphing Student Data
• How will student data be displayed?




Bar graph?
Line graph?
Pie chart?
Box Plot?
• What questions are being asked?
 What percentage of students are benefiting from Tier 2? Pie
Chart?
 What is the performance trend for each student? Line Graph?
 Are students’ improving? Bar Graph?
Line Graph - 10 Students
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10W11W12W13W14W15W16W17W18W19W20W21W22W23W24W25W26W27W28W29W30
Baseline S1
Baseline S2
Baseline S3
Baseline S4
Baseline S5
Baseline S6
Baseline S7
Baseline S8
Baseline S9
Baseline S10
Intervention S1
Intervention S2
Intervention S3
Intervention S4
Intervention S5
Intervention S6
Intervention S7
Intervention S8
Intervention S9
Intervention S10
Goal All
50
Modified Box Plot Design Using 50th %ile Trend
45
Baseline S1
Baseline S2
40
Baseline
Intervention
Baseline S3
AIM
LINE
Baseline S4
Baseline S5
35
Baseline S6
Baseline S7
30
Baseline S8
Baseline S9
Baseline S10
25
Intervention S1
Intervention S2
20
50th Percentile
Trend
Intervention S3
Intervention S4
Intervention S5
15
Intervention S6
Intervention S7
10
Intervention S8
Intervention S9
Intervention S10
5
0
Goal All
50
Line Graph with Trends on 5 Students
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Base
W1
W2 W30 W4
W5
W6
W7 W78 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
All
90
Tier 2 Bar Graph with Trend by Student (5)
80
70
AIM LINE
60
S1
50
S2
S3
S4
40
S5
30
20
10
0
B W1 W3 W5 W7 W9
B W1 W3 W5 W7 W9
B W1 W3 W5 W7 W9
B W1 W3 W5 W7 W9
B W1 W3 W5 W7 W9
Is Tier 2 Effective?
• At least 70% - 80% of students should
benefit from Tier 2 if effective.
• Decision Making Options:
 Similar to options shared with Tier 1.
 Integrity + Rate of Response
• poor, questionable, good?
 Unit of analysis is the group of students
• % who are benefiting from Tier 2 supports.
Intervention Integrity Decisions
Evidence based intervention linked to
verified hypothesis planned
Evidence based intervention
implemented
Student
Outcomes (SO)
Assessed
Treatment
Integrity (TI)
Assessed
Continue Intervention
Data-based
Decisions
From Lisa Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008 NASP Convention
Implement strategies to promote
treatment integrity
Modify/change Intervention
If 70% to 80% are
Improving
• Continue Tier 2 Intervention
• Engage in PS steps with in depth Problem
Analysis for student(s) not improving.
• Check for intervention fidelity/integrity as it
relates to student(s) not improving.
• Check for match of intervention to student
needs for those not improving.
• Consider supplement/increased intensity
for students not benefiting.
If about half are
improving…
• Check treatment integrity
 Is standard protocol implemented as designed?
 Is data on student performance reliable?
 Was intervention given enough time?
• Check match of intervention to student needs
• Check dosage of intervention
• Consider in-depth PS for students not
•
improving.
Consider elements of intervention to be
modified.
If none are improving…
• Check treatment fidelity/integrity.
 If integrity data is +, then Tier 2 not effective for
student needs.
 If integrity data is -, then re-implement with integrity.
 Was intervention given enough time?
 Check for reliability of student performance data.
• Check match to student needs.
• Consider replacement or modifications to Tier 2
•
plan.
Do not yet consider individual Tier 3 plans.
Prioritizing Decisions
• Benchmark Assessments vs. Progress
Monitoring Data
 “It is about assessing what we do, not who we do
it to” – Ken Howell
 First, are we closing the gap on skill(s) assessed
through Progress Monitoring Assessments?
 Is increased performance on subskills leading to
increases in performance on Benchmark
Assessment
• Ex. Benchmark Reading (comprehension); PM phonics.
Student Data Review
Skills Assessment
• No ID required
• Review data for each set of questions and
answer questions
Part I - Determining Common Student Needs
Part II - Placing Students in Interventions
• Work as a team – only 1 form needs to be
completed.
Homework for SBLT
• Using the skills exercised today• Identify a group of students in need of Tier
2 intervention on your campus and identify
a matching standard treatment protocol.
• Bring this with you to the next session
Final Thoughts
Problem Solving &
Response to Intervention