School Association for Special Education in DuPage County
Presents
PROBLEM-SOLVING AND RESPONSE TO
INTERVENTION: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND
PRACTICE
October 2, 2007
David Prasse
Loyola University Chicago
dprasse@luc.edu
Acknowledgements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jeff Grimes - Iowa
Dave Tilly - Iowa
George Batsche - Florida
Joe Kovaleski - Pennsylvania
Ed Shapiro – Pennsylvania
Dan Reschly - Tennessee
Contextual Issues Affecting The ProblemSolving Process in General and
Special Education
• IDEA Re-Authorization
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Focus on academic outcomes
General education as baseline metric
Labeling as a “last resort”
Increasing general education options
Pooling building-based resources
Flexible funding patterns
RtI Introduced as option for LD eligibility
• ESEA Legislation-No Child Left Behind
• National Emphasis on Reading
• Evidence-based Interventions
Getting Results- Research &
Outcomes Based
• Scientifically-based research: 110
times
• Policy Decisions- based on research
• Evidenced-based teacher education
• Evidenced-based medicine: data
over authority (gives authority to the
data)
Why Problem-Solving ?
BIG IDEAS
•
•
•
•
•
AYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of attention to
student progress, not student labels
Building principals and superintendents want to know if students
are achieving benchmarks, regardless of the students “type”
Accurate “placements” do not guarantee that students will be
exposed to interventions that maximize their rate of progress
Effective interventions result from good problem-solving, rather
than good “testing”
Progress monitoring is done best with “authentic” assessment
that is sensitive to small changes in student academic and social
behavior
Big Ideas (con’d)
• Interventions must be “evidence based”
(IDEA/NCLB)
• Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure
of problem “severity”
• Program eligibility (initial and continued)
decisions are best made based on RtI
• Staff training and support (e.g., coaching)
improve intervention skills
• “Tiered” implementation improves service
efficiency
Is It All About Reading? Yes!
• 52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs
• 70% +/- of special education “activities” (e.g.,
evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases
• 94% of students in LD because of
reading/language arts
• 46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading
• Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast majority
of special education “activities”
Reading Achievement
• Reading First – scientifically-based
research
• Provide high quality reading instruction K3
• Early Reading First – 5 key components
• Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency
• Vocabulary & Comprehension
PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL
EDUCATION: FINDINGS
• CURRENT SYSTEM – PROCESS ABOVE
RESULTS
• CURRENT SYSTEM – WAIT TO FAIL
MODEL
• DUAL SYSTEM- GENERAL AND SPECIAL
• INADEQUATE PARENT OPTIONS AND
RECOURSE
• CULTURE OF COMPLIANCE
PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL
EDUCATION: FINDINGS (CONT)
• IDENTIFICATION METHODS LACK
VALIDITY
• BETTER TEACHER PREPARATION
NEEDED
• RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND EVIDENCEBASED PRACTICE
• FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE AND
BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVES NOT
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION SPECIAL
EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS
• FOCUS ON RESULTS – NOT ON
PROCESS
• EMBRACE A MODEL OF
PREVENTION NOT FAILURE
• CONSIDER CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES AS GENERAL
EDUCATON CHILDREN FIRST
Summary: Problems with
the Discrepancy Approach
•
Need to wait until discrepant to deliver SDI
•
Doesn’t link with intervention
•
False positives (high IQ; average achievement)
•
False negatives (the slow learner myth)
Need to Document the
Effectiveness of Special Education
Excedrin Headache #1 for
Special Education!
Effectiveness of LD Programs based on
Discrepancy Model
•
Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students
with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)
•
Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to
9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998)
•
Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be
expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.
•
Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)
•
It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.
EHA 1975
Function and Purpose
• Find/identify children with disabilities
• Diagnosis/label – synonymous with program
• Provide procedural protections
• It worked well – children were “found.”
• Referred, tested, & placed – record numbers.
IDEA 97
• over 20 years of research and experience has
demonstrated that education of children with
disabilities can be made more effective by…. (A)
having high expectations for such children and
ensuring their access in the general education
curriculum to the maximum extent possible; (F)
providing incentives for whole-school approaches
and pre-referral interventions to reduce the need to
label children as disabled in order to address their
learning needs; and (G) focusing resources on
teaching and learning while reducing paperwork and
requirements that do not assist in improving
educational needs (Section 601 (C) (5), IDEA).
IDEA 1997
• Emphasis on student outcomes.
• From procedures to student
performance.
• Stop focusing on testing and labeling
• Start emphasizing effective
intervention.
IDEA 1997
Eligibility Determination
• existing evaluation data (including that provided
by the parents);
• current classroom-based assessments and
observations, and
• teacher and related service providers
observation.
• , “on the basis on that review, and input from the
child’s parents, identify what additional data, if
any, are needed” to determine special education
eligibility needs [Sec. 614 (c) (1) (A) (B)].
(emphasis added).
Status of ReauthorizationIDEA 2004
• Title: “Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act”
• Passed House in 2003, Senate in 2004
• Signed by President Bush in December.
• IN EFFECT July 1, 2005
• Regulations August, 2006
IDEA 2004 CHANGES:
Eligibility Determinations
• A child shall not be determined to be a
child with a disability if determinant factor
is:
– Lack of scientifically-based instructional
practices and programs that contain the
essential components of reading instruction.
– Lack of instruction in math
– Limited English Proficiency
IDEA 2004 Changes
Specific Learning Disabilities
• The LEA shall not be required to take into
consideration whether the child has a
severe discrepancy between achievement
and intellectual ability in oral expression,
listening comprehension, written
expression, basic reading skill, reading
comprehension, mathematical calculation,
or mathematical reasoning.
Regulations
• §300.307 Specific learning disabilities.
• (a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with §300.309,
criteria for determining whether a child has a specific
learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition,
the criteria adopted by the State-• (1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy
between intellectual ability and achievement for
determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10);
• (2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s
response to scientific, research-based intervention; and
• (3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based
procedures for determining whether a child has a specific
learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10).
Regulations
• (b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected
of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of
appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must
consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§300.304
through 300.306-• (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the
referral process, the child was provided appropriate
instruction in regular education settings, delivered by
qualified personnel; and
• (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal
assessment of student progress during instruction, which
was provided to the child’s parents.
Regulations
§300.311 Specific documentation for the eligibility determination.
(a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability,
the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as
required in §300.306(a)(2), must contain a statement of-(1) Whether the child has a specific learning disability;
(7) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the
child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention-–
(i) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered
data collected; and
(ii) The documentation that the child’s parents were notified
about-(A) The State’s policies regarding the amount and nature of
student performance data that would be collected and the
general education services that would be provided;
(B) Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning;
State Regulations – Sec 226.130
• No later than Jan 1, 2009 each district shall develop a plan
for the transition to the use of a process that determines
how the child responds to scientific, research-based
interventions as part of the evaluation procedure described
in 34 CFR 300.304. Each district’s plan shall identify the
resources the district will devote to this purpose and
include an outline of the types of State-assistance the
district expects to need, with particular reference to the
professional development necessary for its affected staff
members to implement this process.
Problem Solving
• A process that uses the skills of
professionals from different
disciplines to develop and evaluate
intervention plans that improve
significantly the school performance
of students
Problem Solving Process
Define the Problem
Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior
Evaluate
Problem Analysis
Response to
Intervention (RtI)
Validating Problem
Ident Variables that
Contribute to Problem
Develop Plan
Implement Plan
Implement As Intended
Progress Monitor
Modify as Necessary
Problem Solving
•
Can be applied to the student, classroom,
building, district, and problem levels
– Student- academic and/or behavior problem
– Classroom- discipline, returning homework
– Building- bullying, attendance
– District- over-/under-representation
– Problem- problem common to students in
building
Problem-Solving:
What It Is and Is Not
• What it is….
–
–
–
–
A process designed to maximize student achievement
A method focused on outcomes
A method to ensure accountability and intervention evaluation
It is all about student progress, regardless of where or who
that student is
• What it is not…
– A way to avoid special education placements
– A less expensive way of schooling
What Are the Barriers?
• It’s a different way of doing business for some.
• It requires an expanded set of skills.
• Interventions are integrated, not done by team members or
special educators only
• Requires frequent data collection and analysis--different
culture
• Focus is on HOW and WHAT student is doing, not WHERE
the student is going
What Are the Benefits?
•
•
•
•
•
Enhanced Student Performance
Accountability
Greater staff involvement
Greater parent involvement
Greater student involvement
Discrepancy/Child Study
vs Problem Solving
•
Focus on interventions (not test scores)
–
Low and high ability students respond equally well to phonemic
awareness and phonics interventions.
•
Assessment linked to developing and monitoring the
effectiveness of interventions (not to diagnoses or categories)
•
Balance between needs/resources (not strictly to eligibility)
•
Change process (not a “fix”)
•
Student outcome-based, not placement-based (What students DO is
important, not what students are CALLLED)
The VISION: To Provide Effective Interventions to Meet the Needs of ALL
Students Through Early and Scientifically Based Interventions Through Careful
Systems Planning
ACADEMIC SYSTEMS
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS
3
Tier Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment - based
• High intensity
• Of longer duration
2
Tier Targeted Group Interventions
• Some students (at-risk)
• High efficiency
• Rapid response
3
5%
5%
15%
15%
2
Tier Targeted Group Interventions
• Some students (at-risk)
• High efficiency
• Rapid response
1
Tier Core Instructional Interventions
• All students
• Preventive, proactive
Tier Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment - based
• Intense, durable procedures
1
80%
80%
STUDENTS
Tier Core Instructional Interventions
• All settings, All students
• Preventive, proactive
What is ‘Response to Intervention
(RtI)’?
(Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005)
• Identifying and providing high quality
instruction and research-based
interventions matched to students needs
• Measuring rate of improvement (ROI) over
time to make important educational
decisions
• Educators use ongoing student performance
data to determine if an intervention is
working. If it is not, it is time to do
something different.
Response to Intervention:
How Well Are We Doing?
•
•
•
•
•
A systematic and data-based method for
determining the degree to which a student has
responded to intervention.
Determined solely through analyzing data
Begins with using data to IDENTIFY the problem
Services should intensify for a student as the
student response to intervention is below
expectations.
It IS NOT Problem-Solving
Response to Intervention:
How Well Are We Doing?
• What do we do when a student has
been “placed” in special education but
the student’s rate of progress has not
changed significantly?
• This has significant implications for
special education re-evaluations under
the RtI model.
Use of RtI in the Student
Eligibility Process
So, how does the
eligibility process look
different using the RtI
approach vs. traditional
practices?
Traditional vs RtI
• Traditional
– Discrepancy
• IQ/Achievement
– Rule Out
•
•
•
•
Sociocultural
SES
Sensory
Developmental
•
RtI
–
•
–
•
•
–
– Data
• Norm referenced
Ineffective
instruction/access
Supplemental instruction
Intensive instruction
Rule “In”
•
•
–
Child/Benchmarks
Rule Out
•
– Rule “In”
• Psychological
Processes
Discrepancy
Identification of effective
interventions
Extraordinary supports
for progress
Data
•
Curriculum-based
Re-Evaluations
• Traditional
– Discrepancy continues to
exist
– Limited progress toward
benchmarks
– Supports critical
• RtI
– Gap is closing
– If response is poor,
should we keep the
student in the
program?
– If response is good,
can we transition to a
Tier 3,2 or 1?
Problem Solving and RtI
• I really just want to
be able to use RtI
without all of that
problem-solving
stuff--can I do that?
Using Response to
Instruction to Determine
Eligibility for Special
Education: Three Tiers
1.
2.
3.
Screening and Primary Intervention
Assessing Response to Instruction
During Through Standard Protocol
Interventions, and/or Team-based
Problem Solving.
Appraising the Extent of Academic
Deficiency and Evaluating the Need
for Specially Designed Instruction.
Tier 1: School-wide
Screening and Intervention
• Grades K-12
• Identification of high risk students
• Targeted intervention to high risk students
using research-based procedures (group)
• Ongoing monitoring of performance
(quarterly)
• Primary example: Early assessment of
marker variables (DIBELS). High school
PBIS program.
TIER 1: Benchmark/Schoolwide
Benchmark/Core Reading Programs:
1. Rigby Literacy (Harcourt Rigby Education,
2000)
2. Trophies (Harcourt School Publishers, 2003)
3. The Nation’s Choice (Houghton Mifflin, 2003)
4. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading (2003)
5. Open Court (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2002)
6. Reading Mastery Plus (SRA/
McGraw-Hill, 2002)
7. Scott Foresman Reading (2004)
8. Success For All (1998-2003)
9. Wright Group Literacy (2002)
Reviewed by: Oregon Reading First
Comprehensive: Addressed all 5 areas
and included at least grades K-3
Tier 1: Data Analysis Teams
• Teams working together to…
• Access critical data on all students’
performance related to achievement of
standards
• Analyze data and find which students
have which gaps in attainments
• Set measurable goals to close the gap
• Design and implement instructional
strategies
Teams Working Together
• Like teachers = grade level or
department level
• Use skills of other team members in
collaborative consultation (e.g.,
problem identification,
brainstorming)
• Need a structure (time, place, etc.)
Accessing Critical Data
• Two forms of data: group test and
district performance tests/tasks
• Need a process for gathering data
• Need someone to convert data into
teacher-friendly summary documents
• Need to train teachers on how to
read summary documents
Kindergarten
Phoneme Segmentation
End of 2001 -2002 Academic Year
Approximately
80 Schools
4%
N = 192
14%
N = 659
81%
N = 3739
Universal Screening can Identify
School Wide Reading Deficits
Mastery
Instructional
At Risk
Reading data- 1st grade
After Grade Wide Intervention-No Systemic Problem
First Grade
Standard-Based
Approaches
• Illinois AIMSweb Standards Tied to
ISAT and Minnesota State
• Oregon DIBELS Standards
With a Standards Based Approach, Use
Linkages to High Stakes Tests
The desired outcome is to have the
student meet standards on High Stakes
Tests.
Illinois
AIMSweb
Standards
(Cut
Scores
for ISAT)
Standards-Based Approaches and
Universal Screening
Red = Highly Unlikely to Pass the State Test
Green = Highly Like to Pass
Yellow = Uncertain to Pass
Conceptualizing Tier 2
• Standard Protocol
• Problem solving teaming
A Standard Protocol
Intervention …
• is scientifically based.
• has a high probability of producing
change for large numbers of students.
• is designed to be used in a standard
manner across students.
• is usually delivered in small groups.
• is often scripted or very structured.
• can be orchestrated by a problem-solving
team.
Tier 2: Assessing Response to
Instruction during Team-based
Problem Solving
• Some students will not meet benchmarks
even with help at Tier 1 or through
standard-protocol interventions.
• Someone is monitoring results of dataanalysis teams to identify students for
school-based problem solving.
• Use problem solving not refer/test/place.
TIER 2: Strategic
Strategic/Supplemental Reading Programs:
Early (Soar to) Success (Houghton Mifflin)
Read Well (Sopris West)
Reading Mastery (SRA)
Early Reading Intervention (Scott
Foresman)
Great Leaps (Diamuid, Inc.)
REWARDS (Sopris West)
Ladders to Literacy (Brookes)
Read Naturally
Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)
100
90
80
70
60
wpm
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Assessment Sessions
Description:
Lack of instruction is not evident.
This student has responded poorly to the intervention strategy. After an initial
adaptation period of five days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed
for the duration of the intervention period. In spite of this assistance, the student's
rate of learning throughout the period has been slow. This response-to-instruction
pattern indicates that the student's lack of progress is more likely the result of
learning difficulties than a lack of effective instruction. Specially designed instruction
is likely needed for this student to acquire and retain new information.
100
90
80
70
60
wpm
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Assessment Sessions
Description:
Student responds well to effective instruction.
This student responded well to the intervention strategy. After an initial adaptation period
of six days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed for the duration of the
intervention period. With this assistance, the student's rate of learning throughout the
period was steady and in a positive direction. This response-to-instruction pattern
indicates that the student's difficulties are more likely the result of a lack of effective
instruction than a disability. This student does not display a high degree of need for
special education because he can demonstrate acquisition and retention with adapted
instruction in the regular classroom.
100
90
80
70
60
wpm
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
Assessment Sessions
Description:
Response to instruction cannot be determined.
This student has responded poorly during the intervention strategy. However, in
spite of support, the intervention was not implemented as planned throughout the
intervention period. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether the student's
lack of progress are more likely the result of learning difficulties or a lack of
effective instruction. Another period of support is needed to assist the teacher to
implement the strategy as designed in order to make a conclusion about this
issue.
Tier 3: Appraising the Extent of
Academic Deficiency and
Evaluating the Need for
Specially Designed Instruction.
TIER 3: INTENSIVE Reading Programs
Corrective Reading (SRA)
Language! (Sopris West)
Wilson Reading System Reading Mastery
Earobics (phonics/phonemic awareness;
Cognitive Concepts)
Great Leaps/ Read Naturally (Fluency)
REWARDS (Fluency, Comp. and Vocab. in
Plus Program)
Soar to Success (comp.)
Entitlement
Decision
Using Response-toIntervention data for
educational decision
making
Entitlement for Special
Education
Assessment and Progress Data
From Problem Solving Process
Educational
Progress
Discrepancy
Instructional
Needs
Convergence of Data from a
Variety of Sources
(Grimes and Tilley, 2003)
Step 1: Appraising the student’s
rate of learning
• Evaluating the student’s response to
scientifically based instruction.
• What was the student’s progress during
the intervention?
Conditions for Special
Education Entitlement:
Progress
• Educational Progress - previous
interventions have not sufficiently
improve a student’s rate of learning and
additional resources are needed to
enhance student learning or the
interventions that have sufficiently
improved the student’s learning are too
demanding to be implemented without
special education resources (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
Assessing Progress (Grimes &
Tilly, 2003)
Progress better than
expected
Student
performance
on measure
baseline
Progress within expected
range
Progress less than
expected
Conditions for Special
Education Entitlement:
Discrepancy
• Discrepancy - given equal or
enhanced opportunities, the student’s
current level of performance is
significantly lower than typical peers or
identified standards (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
Discrepancy (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
Standard
of expected
performance
Above the range of
expected performance
Within the range of
expected performance
Below the range of
expected performance
Verifying Academic
Deficiency Using CBM
• Development of local norms
• Determining discrepancy from local norms
• 2.0 X criterion
2.0X calculation
• Divide norm group mean by
student’s score
• Result expressed as a ratio of
deficiency
• Example: 100 wpm / 50 wpm = 2.0X
Cornwall-Lebanon SD
Elementary
Oral Reading Fluency Norms
Grade 1F
1W
1S
2F
2S
3F
3S
4F
4S
5F
5S
WPM
18
42
69
76
113
79
107
107
125
129
146
EPM
10
6
4
4
2
5
3
3
3
2
2
Step 3: Evaluating the Need for
Specially Designed Instruction
• Deviations in materials
• Deviations in planning
• Deviations in personnel
Conditions for Special
Education Entitlement:
Instructional Needs
• Instructional Needs - instructional needs
have been identified that are beyond what
can be provided in general education. This
is evident when curriculum, instruction or
environmental conditions need to be very
different for the student as compared to
the needs of other students in the general
education environment. (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
Decision Making
•
Is the student’s rate of progress given equal opportunity
significantly less than the rate of typical peers or an
expected rate of skill acquisition or are the interventions
that sufficiently improved the student’s rate of learning
too demanding to be implemented with integrity without
special education resources?
•
Does the student’s performance remain significantly
different than that of peers or identified standard?
•
Does the student continue to need curriculum and
instruction that is significantly different than what is
provided in the general education classroom?
Entitlement Decision
(Grimes and Tilley, 2003)
A.
Educational
Progress
Tells us
what
accelerates
learning.
B.
Discrepancy
Tells us how
unique the
student is
compared to
peers.
C.
Instructional
Needs
Tells us
what and
how to
teach.
Entitlement
Decision
Tells us whether
or not interventions
require special
education.
So What Is Special EducationReally?
• Characteristics AND Need (IDEA 04)
• Instructional and Related Services Necessary to Profit from
Education
• Supplements General Education
– Note: Does not supplant-particularly LD
– “Unified” system of Education
• Funds (really??) Instructional and Related Services When
Those Reach a Certain Level of Intensity
• What is “Special?” Intensity and Focus
Academic Case Examples
• Thanks to Joe
Kovaleski and Ed
Shapiro for the case
examples
• PA State-wide RtI
Initiative
LISA
100
90
80
Words Correct Per Min
70
60
50
50
Benchmark
40
30
20
10
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
School Weeks
Jan
Feb
Decision Model at Tier 1General Education Instruction
• Step 1: Screening
Continue
Tier 1
Instruction
• ORF = 50 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44
wcpm
• Comprehension skills are judged as at levels equal
to ORF by her teacher
• Is this student at risk?
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is Working
Lisa
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2: Strategic
Interventions
Rita
•
•
•
•
•
Second grade student
Beginning of school year
Regular Education
Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
Teacher judges (based on in-class
observation/evaluation) comprehension to not
be substantially different from ORF
Rita
100
90
80
Words Correct Per Min
70
60
Benchmark
50
40
30
20
20
10
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
School Weeks
Jan
Feb
Decision Model at Tier 1General Education Instruction
• Step 1: Screening
Continue
Tier 1
Instruction
• ORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44
wcpm
• Comprehension deficits in all 4 of 5 areas are
noted
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working
• Is this student at risk?
Rita
No
Yes
Rita
Move to Tier 2: Strategic
Interventions
Decision Model at Tier 2Strategic Interventions & Instruction
• Supplemental, small group instruction (3-4
students with similar skill levels)
• Standard protocol intervention
• 3x per week, 30 minutes each
• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)
• Implemented by 2 different available
instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks
Rita- Tier 2
100
Tier 2: Strategic PALS
90
80
Words Correct Per Min
70
60
50
40
30
35
34
28
20
Trendline = 1.85
words/week
24
20
10
Aimline= 1.50
words/week
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
School Weeks
Jan
Feb
Decision Model at Tier 2Strategic Intervention & Instruction
Continue
monitoring
or return to
Tier 1
• ORF = 34 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks
away) for some risk = 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5
words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 1.85 words/week
• Gains above benchmark in 4 of 5 comprehension
areas
• Student on target to attain benchmark
• Step 2: Is student responsive to intervention?
Rita
Yes
No
Move to Tier 3:
Intensive Interventions
Steven
•
•
•
•
•
Second grade student
Beginning of school year
Regular Education
Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
Teacher judges (based on in-class
observation/evaluation) comprehension to not
be substantially different from ORF
Steven
100
90
80
Words Correct Per Min
70
60
Benchmark
50
40
30
20
20
10
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
School Weeks
Jan
Feb
Decision Model at Tier 1General Education Instruction
– Step 1: Screening
Continue
Tier 1
Instruction
• ORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44
wcpm
• Comprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5
areas
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working
• Is this student at risk?
Steven
No
Yes
Rita
Move to Tier 2: Strategic
Interventions
Decision Model at Tier 2Strategic Interventions & Instruction
• Supplemental, small group instruction in Rita’s group (3-4
students with similar skill levels)
• Standard protocol implementation
• 3x per week, 30 minutes each
• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)
• Implemented by 2 different available instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks
Steven
100
Tier 2: Strategic PALS
90
80
Words Correct Per Min
70
60
50
40
Aimline= 1.50
words/week
30
20
20
10
22
18
21
24
Trendline = 0.55
words/week
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
School Weeks
Jan
Feb
Decision Model at Tier 2Strategic Intervention & Instruction
– Step 2: Is student responsive to intervention?
Continue
monitoring
or return to
Tier 1
• ORF = 24 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks
away) for some risk = 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5
words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/week
• Below comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas
• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark
• Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 2?
Steven
Yes
No
Move to Tier 3:
Intensive Interventions
Decision Model at Tier 3Intensive Interventions & Instruction
• Supplemental, 1:3, pull-out instruction
• Individualized Problem-Solving, Targeted
Instruction
• Specific decoding and analysis strategies
• Emphasis on comprehension strategies
• 5x per week, 30 minutes each
• Implemented by 2 different available
instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every week
Steven
100
Tier 2: Strategic PALS
90
Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction,
5x/week, Problem-solving Model to
Target Key Decoding Strategies,
Comprehension Strategies
80
Words Correct Per Min
70
60
50
Aimline= 1.50
words/week
40
42
36
30
28
20
20
10
22
18
21
45
44
40
35
31
Trendline = 0.2.32
words/week
24
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
School Weeks
Jan
Feb
Decision Model at Tier 3Intensive Intervention & Instruction
– Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 3?
• ORF = 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away)
for some risk = 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/week
• At or above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas
• Student on target to attain benchmark
Continue
monitoring
• Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention?
or return to
Tier 2
• Move student back to Strategic intervention
Steven
Yes
No
Move to Sp Ed Eligibility
Determination
Bart
•
•
•
•
•
Second grade student
Beginning of school year
Regular Education
Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
Teacher judges (based on in-class
observation/evaluation) comprehension to not
be substantially different from ORF
Bart
100
Tier 2: Strategic PALS
90
Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction,
5x/week, Problem-solving Model to
Target Key Decoding Strategies,
Comprehension Strategies
80
Words Correct Per Min
70
60
50
Aimline= 1.50
words/week
40
30
30
20
20
10
22
18
21
24
25
26
22
28
30
31
28
Trendline = 0.95
words/week
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
School Weeks
Jan
Feb
Decision Model at Tier 3Intensive Intervention & Instruction
– Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention
at Tier 3?
Continue
monitoring
or return to
Tier 2
• ORF = 31 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks
away) for some risk = 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 0.95 words/week
• Below comprehension benchmarks in all areas
• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark
Bart
Yes
No
Move to Sp Ed Eligibility
Determination
Behavioral
Case
Examples
Tier 1 Ń
Universal Interventions
100
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Grade Level Social Skill Training
90
Benchmark
75
%
70
60
50
%
50
40
30
20
60
%
55
%
45
35
%
40
35
25 23
28
10
= Peer Group
= Aim Line
= Target Student
= Trend Line
Feb
Jan
Dec
Nov
Oct
0
Sept
% Compliance
80
Tier 1 - Universal
Tier 2 - Supplemental
• School-Wide Positive
Behavior Support
• Small Group SST
(1X/week)
• Grade Level Social
Skill Training
• Interdependent
Group Procedure
100
90
Benchmark
70
60
50
%
50
40
30
55
%
20
75
%
65
%
60
%
52
43
35
%
47
35
25 23
28 27
30
10
= Peer Group
= Aim Line
= Target Student
= Trend Line
Feb
Jan
Dec
Nov
Oct
0
Sept
% Compliance
80
Tier 1 - Universal
Tier 2 - Supplemental
• School-Wide Positive
Behavior Support
• Small Group SST
(1X/week)
• Grade Level Social
Skill Training
• Interdependent
Group Procedure
100
90
Benchmark
70
60
50
%
50
40
30
20
35 37 36
25 23
75
%
65
%
60
%
55
%
35
%
41
28 27 30
10
= Peer Group
= Aim Line
= Target Student
= Trend Line
Feb
Jan
Dec
Nov
Oct
0
Sept
% Compliance
80
Tier 1 - Universal
Tier 2 - Supplemental Tier 3 - Intensive
• School-Wide Positive
Behavior Support
• Small Group SST
(1X/week)
• Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)
• Grade Level Social
Skill Training
• Interdependent
Group Procedure
• Individual Self-Control Training
• Home-School Notes
100
90
Benchmark
70
60
50
%
50
40
30
55
%
20
65
%
60
%
75
%
62
57
35 37 36
25 23
80
%
75
%
52
35
%
41 40 42 40
45
28 27 30
10
= Peer Group
= Aim Line
= Target Student
= Trend Line
Feb
Jan
Dec
Nov
Oct
0
Sept
% Compliance
80