CARS +
RtI
How to Make it Work in a
Shrinking Economy
Oakhurst Elementary
 Presenter
- Gail Lancaster –Associate Faculty
National University/Fresno Campus
Resource Specialist/Oakhurst Elementary
glancaster@nu.edu
H.R. 1350 (IDEA 2004)

IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 607b,
when determining whether a child has a specific
learning disability as defined in section 602, a
local educational agency shall not be required to
take into consideration whether a 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.
IDEA 1997 v. IDEA 2004

IDEA 1997
– Student has SLD if:
Student failed to
achieve commensurate
with age and ability if
provided appropriate
teaching experiences
AND
- IEP team found SEVERE
DISCREPANCY between
achievement and
intellectual ability

IDEA 2004
– No longer required to
find severe discrepancy

IEP team may use a
process that
determines if the child
responds to a
SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCHED BASED
INTERVENTION
Problems with the Discrepancy
Model
Critics have described the model as a wait
to fail model. Students must be at least 2
years behind before receiving help.
 Easier to catch students up at an earlier
age but they would not qualify.
 By the time they qualify emotional
damage and self concept issues are harder
to get rid of.

Teacher Qualifications
 Department
of Ed encourages RtI
 Disconnect between CCTC and Dept
of Ed.
 Fully qualified: if doing Tier III
should have M/M credential (RSP
certificate) and Multiple subject.
 How will this discrepancy be
resolved?
Multi Tiered Model of Service
Delivery
 Tier
1 - Universal Interventions
 Tier
2 - Selected Interventions
 Tier
3 - Intensive Interventions
 Tier
4(?) – Special Ed services.
3 tiered model
Tier 3: Intensive, Individual
Interventions (5%)
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
Tier 2: Targeted Group
Interventions (15%)
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Tier 1: Universal
Interventions (80%)
•All students
•Preventive,
proactive
1-5%
1-5%
5-10%
80-90%
5-10%
Students
80-90%
OES RtI
Began the process January 06’ because
we wanted to take a proactive stance. We
wanted to make the model work for us
and for students. The team embraced the
chance to work with students and to
develop this model before the state
mandated how it should look.
 Team formed
 Principal, School Psychologist, Resource
Specialist, Reading Specialist

OES RTI Model
weekly for 6 months.
 Visited other Reading Labs
 Did significant amount of research and
reading on RtI /followed the research
 Looked at various researched based
reading programs

 Researched
DIBELS assessment program
 Brought in presenters from various programs
Began to set the stage for staff buy in/
presented ideas to staff in Spring
 Contacted State Diagnostic Center for
assistance/ became one of their projects

RESEARCH ISSUES
 What
worked?
– Strong leadership
– Collaborative team effort
– Using data to drive instruction
– Having a small school
– Bottom-up approach versus top-down
You need to answer these
questions










What is your vision?
What are your goals and objectives?
How can you make this work?
How can you work smarter not harder?
How can you make it easier for staff?
How can you get staff to buy in?
How would your model be different?
What are your resources?
How much would this cost? Could you do it
within your current resources?
What researched programs do you think would
work?
What would you do next?
What questions do you need to get
answered before you begin?
5 minutes – please share with a partner
Building Teacher Buy In
 Everything
presented to the staff
must be well planned
 Use team building skills to help pull
staff together before model is
presented
 Approach this in several ways:
– “You’ve said this is a problem here is one way we are
trying to address it”
– Acknowledgement of frustration at working with low
level readers and making little progress.
Teacher Buy in Cont.





Prior to presenting to whole staff – choose “positive” leader to present
ideas to and work out more issues
Presented DIBELS with the idea of taking other assessments off their
plates/or other tests
Gave teachers freedom during lab time to do differentiation, platoon
groupings etc. (Big ideas of Reading)
Acknowledged their professionalism in the choices they made in the class
but monitor that Tier I students have interventions in regular ed
.classroom.
Periodically check with your staff on the following:
– Is this working?
– What do you need to make it work better?
– What questions do you have?
Everything must be collaborative and well
planned!
Tier 1 Program
(Primary Prevention; General Education;
Universal core instructional program)
During the Tier I pull-out program, focus in on
the “BIG IDEAS” of reading instruction:
•Phonemic Awareness
•Alphabetical Principal
•Accuracy and fluency reading to connected text
•Vocabulary development
•Reading Comprehension
What this can look like:
•Actively engaged students working in small
groups receiving differentiation of instruction;
fluidity within the groups
•Teachers providing explicit and systematic
instruction
•Center activities focusing on various skills
development
•Activities like Readers Theater and Literature
Circles
Tier I Materials

Teachers have the freedom to use their
professional judgment in providing
differentiated instruction
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Open Court: Re-teach
Open Court: ELD component
Hampton Brown
SRA
Readers Theater
Literature Circles
Partner Reading
Teacher directed grouping
Team teaching
Tier II
 More
intense instruction
 Biweekly progress monitoring
 Small groups
 More individualized
Tier II Materials Selected
Lexia: primary reading/ CD Rom,
-(phonemic awareness and phonics)
Rewards: Intermediate level,
-(multisyllabic decoding)
Read Naturally: tapes and CD Rom,
-(fluency)
Drops in the Bucket/Frog Games
-(language skills)
After School Achievers Reading Club
- (reading strategies/language skills/comprehension)
Hampton Brown: (language Development for EL’s)
Guided Reading Book Sets
Tier III
 Most
intensive instruction
 Weekly progress monitoring
 Programs are individualized and
adjusted as needed
 Usually preliminary to a referral
Tier III Materials
 Orton
Gillingham/Zoophonics
 Steck Vaughn Power up
(intermediate CD Rom/online)
 Read Naturally
 Edmark reading (CD)
 Some students/Language focus
Referral
 Maintain
tracking sheets when
students switch levels
 Put tracking sheets in reg ed cum
 Can now use tracking sheets to
establish interventions
 No longer need a discrepancy
School Psych Report
 Answers
the following questions:
– Does xxx qualify for special education
based on the criteria set forth under
Federal RtI guidelines?
 Data
must be collected to establish a
pattern.
OAKHURST ELEMENTARY
OAKHURST
Screening for Program Placement Worksheet
Interventions
= entry field
School Name: Oakhurst Elementary School
District Name: Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary District
Teacher/Test Gr 4 /
Oakhurst Elementary School
Bass Lake Joint Union
Gr 4 /
Fluency Intervention
Programs
Star AR
Decoding Intervention Programs
San
Indicate if Special Education Student
ELL CELDT 07'
SE
EL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ELL CELDT 09'
ELL CELDT 08'
CST EnglishLanguage
Arts
Score
Year:
2007
CST EnglishLanguage
Arts
Score
Year:
2007
EI
EI
I
I
EI
I
I
EI
I
A
A
EA
2008
score
300
SE
Post
2008
score
\
139
64
57
104
122
78
80
B
PRO
BB
FBB
B
BB
PRO
PRO
334
367
267
251
327
282
387
367
B
PRO
BB
B
B
BB
\
B
300
383
285
307
314
285
\
318
103
95
97
PR0
PRO
B
354
362
317
B
B
B
307
326
330
114
112
126
PRO
BB
B
376
285
342
PRO
BB
B
361
285
338
EA
I
SE
SE
I
EA
102
122
126
100
113
140
B
Pro
Pro
\
PRO
B
306
381
381
\
362
334
B
Pro
Pro
PRO
B
B
318
381
375
366
307
300
85
96
33
62
71
BB
B
BB
\
BB
278
323
274
\
289
BB
BB
FBB
BB
BB
281
270
242
285
262
88
163
53
38
89
68
107
67
74
93
66
70
133
59
88
89
97
81
90
105
89
118
109
110
93
63
65
83
26
63
62
Target
105
CWPM
Target
118
CWMP
Passage/
Grade
Level
50
4
109
160
69
74
104
92
134
83
106
114
93
96
171
79
111
124
141
91
97
109
102
153
103
130
95
78
82
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
45
79
86
Test
Pre
Date test Date test
given
given:
Test
May 09' Aubg 08'
Jan 09'
Target
93
CWPM
340
EA
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
May 08 ORF
Target 3rd 110
Student Grade Level
Examp
Jane Doe
le
Pseudoword Decoding
Dibles Grade 4
6
Student
Name
Diego Quick
136
111
Target
118
CWPM
Inst
Passage
Grade
Level
CW
post test
Date test
given:
May
09'
Inst
Passage
Grade
Level
CW
0
4
8
2
2
4
2
10
9
9
10
4
10
2
10
3
9
3
10
4
4
4
3
1
2
9
10
8
10
10
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
6
2
30
31
32
34
(Highest
Unit
Complet
ed)
Date test
given:
Pre Test
Post Test
Date test given:
Date test given:
Aug 08'
May 09'
Aug 08'
Grade Level
grade level
Grade
Level of
Passage
Grade
Level of
Passage
A
D
0
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
6
2
31
32
33
34
3.3
5.7
2.5
2.1
3
2.5
4.5
4.6
3.6
4,7
4.9
2.5
5.8
3.1
3.9
3.6
3.4
4.4
3.2
6.6
3.6
4.8
5
4.6
4.6
2.3
3.8
3.8
1.5
2.3
2.8
3.1
1.3
Pre Test
Date test
given:
Jan 09'
4.4
4
2.5
2.4
4.8
3.3
4.1
5.4
3.9
5.6
4.1
3.8
6.6
4.5
5.1
4.3
4.5
4.4
3.6
5.1
4.6
5.6
4.5
3.5
5.7
2.6
2.7
3
May 09'
Differences between HS
and Elementary RTI
 Elementary
RTI framework
does not necessarily translate
into high school RTI
 Purpose of high school RTI
drives framework components
 High school RTI serves
different needs
High School RTI
 Many
schools are struggling
 Research not as well defined
 Multiple implementation issue
– Communication/between staff
– Changing roles/gen ed. staff need to
make changes to way core content is
delivered
– Movement between tiers
– Assessment
Unique Features of High School RTI
Staff Roles
• Who provides the additional
interventions? How to do you
plan to support this new role for
staff?
• How do special education and/or
behavioral specialists support
the framework?
• If RTI is implemented in more
than one content area, how will
you support content teachers
into becoming more than
“teachers of content?”
Long Beach HS District
 Assessment:
Test all incoming 9th
graders at end of 8th grade.
– Use CST, course grades, and
assessments in Language! curriculum.
 Decisions
are not based on a single
data point.
 All incoming 9th graders receive core
literacy instruction.
Curriculum Structure

Students ½ a year to two years behind
receive the core literacy program as well
as an additional literacy workshop course.
– Materials scaffold the core literacy program.

More than 2 years behind
– Double block of language arts that consists of
intensive English Lang arts program or an after
school reading program.
– Curriculum: Language! and Lindamood Bell
– Monitored though “cluster tests”
HS research suggestions
 Research
is limited
 Ideas for assessment
– Group Reading Assessment and
Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE)
– Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests
Revised
– Research going on using Strategies
Intervention Model
Junior High Model
 Ranchos
Middle School
 Golden Valley Unified School District
 Madera County
RMS Assessment
Use CST and CELDT as screening tools
 Students are placed into reading
strategies classes and further testing is
continued
 San Diego quick is used to measure word
in isolation decoding
 Scholastics 3-minute fluency is used to
measure oral reading fluency

 Reading
Specialist does most of the
individual assessments
 Performs these assessments during
lunch, prep period and class time.
 District use to hire a substitute to
help in order to finish assessments,
now uses PEP/Tutorial time
Who Gets Assessed?






Students scoring as Basic (below 325 CST)
Below Basic and Far Below Basic.
Teacher or Parent Concerns can trigger an
assessment.
Students scoring below a 2.0 GPA.
Students placed in an intervention class
receive additional testing.
Students scoring on grade level are then
moved out of intervention class.
Need to score 120 WPM
Logistics




Students grouped by grade level or ELD label
but not on data
Students stay for a year, can be moved at
semester
Have begun screening 6th graders, prior to
coming to Jr. High
Interventions for 7th and 8th graders delivered
in a double block period combining the
intervention with the core Language Arts
Instruction
Interventions
 Rewards
 6-Minute
Solution (ORF)
 Read Naturally
 Pilot Site for Reading Plus (on
computer)
Modifications due to Cost
 Interventions
will be cut from 4
periods a day to 3
 Specialist shared between two sites
Lone Star Elementary
 Grade
level interventions
 Multiple Tiers
– Tier 1: monitoring
– Tier 2: SOAR –Students Out and
Reading
– Tier 2+: ART2 (At Risk Tier 2)
monitored weekly
– Tier III: IEP students and failed
progress in Tier 2+
LS Identification
Tier III: IEPs; failed progress in Tier2+
 Tier 2+; CST FBB/BB and lowest DIBLES
Intensive
 Tier 2: B/BB/FBB; DIBLES strategic and
intensive
 Tier 1: English Learners, CST P*/A (3 – 6)
 DIBLES Benchmark (K – 2)

LS Tier I



Assessment
– CELDT
– AR STAR
– Read Naturally
– Rewards
Delivery
– Gen Ed classroom/ small group instruction
Monitor
– DIBLES monthly, AR STAR monthly, Unit Assessments
LS Tier 2+/2



Assessment
– Quick phonics screener
– Phonics for Reading
– Rewards
– Literature Connection/complete
Delivery
– 4 days a week 30 min time blocks
Monitor
– Tier 2+ weekly DIBLES, Biweekly program progress
– Tier 2 Monthly DIBLES, AR STAR M, Program Progress
LS Tier III
Assessment
– EL- IPT listening/speaking
– Test used in other Tiers
 Delivery
– Small group (3 - 4)
 Monitor
– Weekly DIBLES
– Biweekly program monitor
– IEP Quarterly Check

Assessment
 Dibels
 Pseudoword
 AR-
Decoding (GL WIAT)
STAR
 Color coded tracking sheet for ease
of selection
 Learn to trust data!!!
 Check with reg ed teachers
Planning Instructional Groupings
 Team
process
 Relied heavily on Dibels data
– Must determine most important
indicator
 Analyzed
other diagnostic measures
 Analyzed STAR CST testing levels
Increase in decoding
 (9
months of Tier II and Tier III labs
used WIAT GL Pseudoword decoding
scores – includes spec ed students)
 Grade 2
10.2 months
 Grade 3
9.8
 Grade 4
8.8
 Grade 5
7.9
 Over all average 9 months
Schedule Cont.
8:10 –
8:55 –
9:40 –
10:40 –
11:25 –
8:50
9:35
10:20
11:20
12:10
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
What We Learned!
 Both
Reg ed teachers and Core team
had to learn to trust the data
 Don’t put too many students in lab
– Leave openings for students who just
moved to your school.
– Don’t transition students too soon. Let
long term memory kick in.
Don’t refer a child unless they have
had a full year in Tier III
For More Information
National High School Centerwww.betterhighschools.org
 National Center on RTIwww.rti4success.org
 Center on Instructionwww.centeroninstruction.org
 RTI Wire
www.jimwrightonline.com
