Download - Supporting the Implementation of Response to Intervention

Supporting the Implementation ofResponse to Intervention

Ingham ISDOctober 22, 2010

Dr. George M. BatscheProfessor and Co-DirectorInstitute for School Reform

Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI ProjectUniversity of South Florida

Culture of Change• No Child Left Behind (ESEA)

– Accountability (Outcomes, Response to Instruction)-More Rigor– Disaggregated Data– State-Approved, State-Level Benchmarks-Higher Expectations– More exposure to the curriculum

• IDEIA– Insistence on “effective instruction” in in reading and math in general education– Requirement for a different type of assessment

• Continuous Progress Monitoring• Universal screening

– Higher expectations for students with disabilities (All Can Learn)

• Learn Act• A Blueprint for Reform-2010

Response to Intervention

• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions.

(Batsche, et al., 2005)

• Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

LEARN Act and RTI

• LEARN Act is the literacy foundation of ESEA

• RTI Language in the LEARN Act is called “Multi-Tier System of Supports

• Multi-Tier System of SupportsThe term ‘‘multi-tier system of supports’’ means a comprehensive system of differentiated supports that includes evidence-based instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, formative assessment, and research-based interventions matched to student needs, and educational decision making using student outcome data.

A Blueprint for Reform-2010• "Instead of labeling failures, we will reward success. Instead of a

single snapshot, we will recognize progress and growth. And instead of investing in the status quo, we must reform our schools to accelerate student achievement, close achievement gaps..." (Forward)

• ”…districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape." (Page 6)

• ”A commitment to...Meeting the needs of students with disabilities throughout ESEA and through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." )Page 19)

The Vision• 95% of students at “proficient” level

• Students possess social and emotional behaviors that support “active” learning

• A “unified” system of educational services– One “ED”

• Student Support Services perceived as a necessary component for successful schooling

National Perspective• 71% of districts are in some stage of implementing RTI – up

from 60% in 2008 and 44% in 2007• RTI is being increasingly implemented across all grade levels

with a significant increase in high school implementation compared to 2008

• Of districts with enough data, 83% indicated RTI has reduced the number of referrals to special education

• Districts reported the three primary obstacles to implementing RTI as: Insufficient teacher training, Lack of intervention resources, Lack of data, knowledge, skills for tracking/charting

• www.spectrumk12.com

http://www.spectrumk12.com/

8

Intensity vs. Severity

Intensity is measured by how far behind a student is academically or how different the behavior is from peers or norms.

Severity is degree to which the student responds to well delivered intervention.

A student could have an intense problem, but catch up quickly. Not Severe

A student could have an intense problem, but NOT respond to well delivered interventions. Severe

9

Intensity vs. Severity

An INTENSE problem is not necessarily a severe problem.

Students with disabilities exhibit BOTH intensity AND severity

10

Paradigm Shift

• Eligibility focus– Diagnose and Place– Get label

• Outcome focus – Problem Solving and

Response to Intervention– Get help

Consensus Building: A Shift in Thinking

The central question is not: “What about the students is causing the

performance discrepancy?” but

“What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learners and

learning environment should be altered so that the students will learn?”

This shift alters everything else Ken Howell

12

“Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have and under-estimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up”Belasco & Stayer, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring to Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead, 1994

TIER I: Core, UniversalAcademic and Behavior

13

GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels

Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students.Tier I: Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction.Tier I: Begins with clear goals:1.What exactly do we expect all students to learn ?2.How will we know if and when they’ve learned it?3.How you we respond when some students don’t learn?4.How will we respond when some students have already learned?

Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and

viable core curriculum

TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted

14

Tier II For approx. 20% of students

Core +

Supplemental…to achieve benchmarksTier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards).1.Where are the students performing now?2.Where do we want them to be?3.How long do we have to get them there?4.How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there?5.What resources will move them at that rate?

TIER III: Intensive, Individualized

15

Tier III For Approx 5% of Students

Core

+Supplemental

+Intensive Individual Instruction

…to achieve benchmarks

1.Where is the student performing now?2.Where do we want him to be?3.How long do we have to get him there?4.What supports has he received?5.What resources will move him at that rate?

Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals.

in order to meet benchmarks.

=

These students get these tiersof support

+

Three Tiered Model of Student Supports

The goal of the tiers is student success, not labeling.

Building the Infrastructure toImplement a System of RtI

Infrastructure

• School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT)– Communication, Data Sharing– Roles/Responsibilities

• Problem-Solving Process• Data Systems and Technology• Decision-Rules• Building the Tiers• Intervention Development and Decisions

Problem Solving teams• A school-based group composed of various school personnel

who convene to a provide assistance to children who are having academic or behavioral difficulties in school.

• The team is responsible for implementing a problem solving approach to identify and intervene in response to student’s’ needs within the arena of general education.

• Schwanz & Barbour, 2005

Problem Solving versus Pre-referral teams

• PSTs develop interventions designed to resolve a student’s academic or behavioral difficulty in a general education setting whenever possible.

– Identify, through a tiered process, the supports and instructional strategies the student needs to make and maintain progress

• PRTs recommend one or two interventions and then based on the student’s progress, determine whether a referral for an ESE evaluation is warranted to gather pscyho-educational information.

– Triage whether student should be referred for ESE evaluation

Key Issues in Building a Team

– Teams function best when all members have strong group process skills

– Many teams have some (but not all) members who have been trained in group process skills

– Training the team in group process skills provides the foundation needed to work effectively using a problem solving model

Addressing Time Factors• Time available for meetings is often sited as biggest barrier to

success

• Set aside a meeting time and make it sacred

• Time is managed best when members come to the meetings prepared

• When a firm meeting time has been established and is supported, meeting becomes part of the school culture

Process during team meetings• Provide team members with information/data prior to the

meeting so individuals might prepare and problem solve in advance to facilitate the process during the meeting

• Spend equal/appropriate time on each step for each problem introduced (facilitator/timekeeper)

• Document discussion and record action plan with specifics clearly identified (recorder)

• Assign a case manager to monitor the process between meetings(facilitator/case manager)

Process during team meetings• Begin each meeting by reviewing the steps to the problem

solving process (facilitator)

• Ensure that all members have an opportunity to participate in meaningful and relevant way

• If using “brainstorming”, stick to the rules (facilitator/chair)

• Manage time effectively (timekeeper)

School-Based Infrastructure

• School-based leadership team (SBLT)• School-based coach

– Process Technical Assistance– Interpretation and Use of Data

• Master Calendar• Data Days• Evaluation Model

Roles and Responsibilities

Principal’s Role in Leading Implementation of RtI

• Models Problem-Solving Process• Expectation for Data-Based Decision Making• Scheduling “Data Days”• Schedule driven by student needs• Instructional/Intervention Support• Intervention “Sufficiency”• Communicating Student Outcomes• Celebrating and Communicating Success

Core Skill Areas for ALL Staff

• Data-Based Decision Making Process• Coaching/Consultation• Problem-Solving Process• Data Collection and Management• Instruction/Intervention Development, Support and

Evaluation• Intervention Fidelity• Staff Training• Effective Interpersonal Skills

Developing Infrastructure:Data Coaches & Facilitators

• Data Coaches should be able to:– Gather and organize Tier I and II data– Support small group and individual data collection– Assist in data interpretation– Facilitate data meetings for building and grade levels

• Facilitators:– Ensure pre-meeting preparation– Review steps in process and desired outcomes– Facilitate movement through steps– Facilitate consensus building– Set follow-up schedule/communication– Create evaluation criteria/protocol– Ensure parent involvement

PS/RtI Coaches

Primary role and responsibilities• Collect and manage data (school, grade and

classroom level)• Participate on school based PS team• Model effective group process using the 4 steps of

PS• Partner with the school principal to facilitate the

change initiatives• Collaborate with the district team to identify

technical assistance as needed

Table Top Activity

• How might roles changed as a result of implementing RtI?

• Do the resources exist to support a 3-tier service delivery model?

• What work must be done here?

Problem Solving Process

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

1. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION• Identify replacement behavior• Data- current level of performance• Data- benchmark level(s)• Data- peer performance• Data- GAP analysis

2. PROBLEM ANALYSIS• Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)• Develop predictions/assessment

3. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT• Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available and

hypotheses verified• Proximal/Distal• Implementation support

4. Response to Intervention (RtI)• Frequently collected data• Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

REPLACEMENT BEHAVIORS

• 90% of the students in first grade will demonstrate reading fluency at district benchmarks by January 15th of each year.

• School-wide Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) will be at or below the _______ level monthly.

• 75% of ELL students receiving Tier 2 services will achieve district level benchmarks in fluency.

Data Required for Problem Identification

• Replacement Behavior• Current Level of Functioning• Benchmark/Desired Level• Peer Performance• GAP Analysis

Problem ID Review

Student(s)

Benchmark

Peers

Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 1

• Identify the number and names of students who are in core instruction 100% of the time.

• Identify the number and names of students who receive supplemental instruction.

• Identify the number and names of students who receive intensive instruction.

• Calculate the % of students who receive only Tier 1, core instruction.– Is this at, above or below 80%?

• Same for Tiers 2 and 3?– What does the distribution look like? A triangle, a rectangle?


• What % of Tier 1 students made proficiency?• What % of Tier 2 students made proficiency?• What % of Tier 3 students made proficiency?• What was the overall % of students who made

proficiency?• Calculate by disaggregated groups.


• By disaggregated groups, plot the % of students who made proficiency for the past 5 years.

• Calculate the % of average growth per year for each group.– % proficient in year 5 minus % proficient in year 1

divided by 5=average rate of increase in % of students making proficiency


• Are you happy with:– % of students in core who are proficient?– Same for each of the other Tiers.

• % of students in the three Tiers?

• Given that the national increase in % of students who move to proficiency is about 7%, how are you doing with the rate over the past years and what does this information mean to you for the next 5 years?– In 2014, 95% of students should be proficient

Tier I: Oral Reading Fluency• What is the problem?

The core effectiveness for oral reading fluency in first grade is 65.9%.

Why is it occurring?In first grade, students lack access to effective instruction because they are tardy and miss approximately 1/3 of the 90 minute reading block.

If the first grade reading block is moved from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., then the core effectiveness for first grade will increase.

• What are we going to do about it?First Grade reading block will be changed from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for the 08-09 school term.

• Did the group respond to the intervention and was it positive, questionable or poor?

West DeFuniak Elementary

65.9%

27.9%

6.4%

85.4%

10.4%

4.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 1st Grade Total (DIBELS 3) 08-09 2nd Grade Total (DIBELS 1)

West DeFuniak Elementary SchoolComparison of 07-08 First Grade to 08-09 Second Grade

Instructional Level by Ethnicity

Intial Strategic Intensive

Pre-Interventioncore effectivenessdata

Post-Interventioncore effectivenessdata

Ethnicity within First Grade

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

42.2%

47.4%

10.6%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

50.0%

35.8%

14.3%

67.3%

27.3%

5.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 AmericanIndian (1st)

07-08 Asian-Islander(1st)

07-08 Black (1st) 07-08 Hispanic (1st) 07-08 Multi-Racial(1st)

07-08 White

2007-2008 First Grade DIBELS, Assessment 3 Instructional Level


Pre-Intervention: 8:00 a.m. CORE reading block

Oral Reading Fluency byEthnic Groups within Second Grade

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

64.8%

29.5%

5.9%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

90.0%

0.0%10.0%

90.0%

7.2%2.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

08-09 American Indian(2nd)

08-09 Black (2nd) 08-09 Hispanic (2nd) 08-09 Multi-Racial (2nd) 08-09 White (2nd)

2007-2008 First Grade DIBELS, Assessment 3 Instructional Level


Pre-Intervention: 8:00 a.m. CORE reading block

Tier I: Oral Reading FluencyWhat is the problem?The core curriculum is ineffective for Low SES students (68.2%)

Why is it occurring?Because visual presentation of each student’s progress is lacking, the student is unaware of where his/her progress falls on a weekly basis. (If students monitor their own progress and can visualize their performance, their oral reading fluency will increase.

What are we going to do about it?At the beginning of the 08-09 school year, students are provided with a simple graph and are asked to monitor their own progress on weekly oral reading fluency probes.

Did the group respond to the intervention and was it positive, questionable or poor?

Freeport Elementary School

68.2%

14.5%

17.4%

90.2%

8.5%1.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Low SES (K) 08-09 Low SES (1st)

Freeport Elementary School Low Socio-Economic Status

Instructional Level


76.3%

10.9%

12.9%

91.9%

6.4%1.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Kindergarten Total (DIBELS 3) 08-09 1st Grade Total (DIBELS 1)

Freeport Elementary SchoolComparison of 07-08 Kindergarten to 08-09 First Grade



Pre-Interventioncore effectivenessdata

Post-Interventioncore effectivenessdata

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

66.7%

25.0%

8.4%

75.0%

0.0%

25.0%

77.0%

10.3%

12.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Asian-Islander (K) 07-08 Black (K) 07-08 Hispanic (K) 07-08 Multi-Racial (K) 07-08 White (K)

Freeport Elementary School 07-08 Kindergarten (Assessment 3)



100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

90.6%

8.3%1.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

08-09 Asian-Islander (1st) 08-09 Black (1st) 08-09 Hispanic (1st) 08-09 Multi-Racial (1st) 08-09 White (1st)

Freeport Elementary School 08-09 First Grade



Table Top Activity

• What are the strengths of your existing problem-solving process

• What are areas that require improvement?

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?

• Positive Response– Gap is closing– Can extrapolate point at which target student(s) will “come in

range” of target--even if this is long range– Level of “risk” lowers over time

• Questionable Response– Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still

widening– Gap stops widening but closure does not occur

• Poor Response– Gap continues to widen with no change in rate

Performance

Time

Positive Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Performance

Time

Questionable Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Performance

Time

Poor Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Performance

Time

Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Positive

Questionable

Poor

Decision Rules:Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

• Positive– Continue intervention with current goal– Continue intervention with goal increased– Fade intervention to determine if student(s) have

acquired functional independence

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

• Questionable– Was intervention implemented as intended?

• If no - employ strategies to increase implementation integrity

• If yes -– Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of

time and assess impact. – If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to

problem solving

Decision Rules:Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

• Poor– Was intervention implemented as intended?

• If no - employ strategies in increase implementation integrity

• If yes -– Is intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis?

(Intervention Design)– Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis)– Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification)

Table Top Activity

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the method you currently use for decision rules?

Assessing Implementation and Fidelity

• Level of implementation– SAPSI

• Level of Fidelity– Integrity Measures

Findings• Consistent increases in indicators of:

– Consensus– Infrastructure– Implementation of PS/RtI

• Strategic actions related to increases in targets– District commitment and support– SBLT planning and communication with staff

• Schools further along with reading than other content areas• Continued support needed

– Training– Coaching– Scaffolding of process

AssessingImplementation Fidelity

• Observation Checklists

• Permanent Product Checklists

Intervention Fidelity Strategies

• Tier 1– Principal Reading Walkthroughs assessing

presence/absence of effective instructional strategies

– Effective instruction checklist– Secondary core reading program checklists

• Tier 2/3– Intervention Support Practices

Effective Instruction (Foorman et al., 2003; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Arrasmith, 2003; & Rosenshine, 1986)

Characteristic Guiding Questions Well Met Somewhat Met

Not Met

Goals and Objectives Are the purpose and outcomes of instruction clearly evident in the lesson plans? Does the student understand the purpose for learning the skills and strategies taught?

Explicit Are directions clear, straightforward, unequivocal, without vagueness, need for implication, or ambiguity?

Systematic Are skills introduced in a specific and logical order, easier to more complex? Do the lesson activities support the sequence of instruction? Is there frequent and cumulative review?

Scaffolding Is there explicit use of prompts, cues, examples and encouragements to support the student? Are skills broken down into manageable steps when necessary?

Corrective Feedback Does the teacher provide students with corrective instruction offered during instruction and practice as necessary?

Modeling Are the skills and strategies included in instruction clearly demonstrated for the student?

Guided Practice Do students have sufficient opportunities to practice new skills and strategies with teacher present to provide support?

Independent Application Do students have sufficient opportunities to practice new skills independently?

Pacing Is the teacher familiar enough with the lesson to present it in an engaging manner? Does the pace allow for frequent student response? Does the pace maximize instructional time, leaving no down-time?

Instructional Routine Are the instructional formats consistent from lesson to lesson?

Intervention Support

• Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff

• All intervention plans should have intervention support

• Principals should ensure that intervention plans have intervention support

• Teachers should not be expected to implement plans for which there is no support

Intervention Support• Pre-meeting

– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Determine logistics

• First 2 weeks– 2-3 meetings/week– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Revise, if necessary

Intervention Support• Second Two Weeks

– Meet twice each week

• Following weeks– Meet at least weekly– Review data– Review steps– Discuss Revisions

• Approaching benchmark– Review data– Schedule for intervention fading– Review data

Table Top Activity

• How is instruction/intervention fidelity ensured in your building/district?

• How are you documenting service delivery in Tiers 2 and 3?

Response to Intervention:Implementing Tiers I, II and III

TIER I: Core, UniversalAcademic and Behavior

74

GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels

Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students.Tier I: Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction.Tier I: Begins with clear goals:1.What exactly do we expect all students to learn ?2.How will we know if and when they’ve learned it?3.How you we respond when some students don’t learn?4.How will we respond when some students have already learned?

Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and

viable core curriculum

75

Tier I

Key Questions– How effective are school-wide academic and behavior

programs?– How well are Tier I instruction/interventions

implemented?

76

Tier I• Focus of School-based Intervention Team

– Identify common behavioral issues through school-wide data analysis

– Implement school-wide procedures, practices, & supports

• Interventions - school-wide/classroom– Positive behavior supports– Social-emotional learning curriculum– School-wide discipline program

What does core instruction look like for reading?

K-5– 90 minute reading block

• Comprehensive reading program is the central tool for instruction.• Explicit, systematic, and differentiated instruction is provided.• In-class grouping strategies are in use, including small group instruction as

appropriate to meet student needs. • Active student engagement occurs in a variety of reading-based activities,

which connect to the essential components of reading and academic goals.

• Effective classroom management and high levels of time on task are evident.

6-12– Content area courses in which the reading content standards are addressed

for all students including:• Middle School Developmental Reading• English/Language Arts• Other core areas such as science, social studies, and math

What strategies exist to differentiate instruction for K-5 students in Tier 1?

• Differentiate in small, flexible reading groups – Use data to form groups based on skills to be taught

(comprehension, phonics, etc.)– Ensure that groups are flexible – Determine a schedule to rotate children through

groups/centers– Ensure that students with the most intensive needs meet

in the teacher-led center everyday• Targeted and deliberate independent reading

practice that utilizes relevant practice, extension, and production opportunities

What data can be collected to evaluate the impact of core instruction?

• Progress monitoring assessments three times a year (Benchmarking)

• Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM)• Core Reading Program Unit Tests / Curriculum-

based assessments• Outcome measures (SAT-10 and State Tests) to

make decisions about student placement for the following year

What Does Core Instruction Look Like for Behavior?

• School-wide Positive Behavior Support• School-wide social skills/character skill

education (e.g., Boys Town)• School-Home collaboration and partnerships• Active student engagement in promoting a

prosocial environment (e.g., bully prevention)• School-wide discipline plan that can be

explained by both staff and students

81

Sources of Data

• Academic performance• Discipline data- Office discipline referrals (ODR)• Records• Referral history • Observation• PBS benchmark assessment• School climate surveys• Attendance data

Tier 1 Data Days

• Typically, Tier 1 analyses done in the summer• Based on:

– High Stakes Assessment Data– District-Wide Assessments– Disaggregated Data

• Decisions used throughout year• Core instruction changes decided at this time

Table Top Activity

• Do you believe that your Tier 1 instruction (academic and behavior) contains the critical elements of an RtI model?

• What do you believe you must do to strengthen Tier 1?

TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted

84

Tier II For approx. 20% of students

Core +

Supplemental…to achieve benchmarksTier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards).1.Where are the students performing now?2.Where do we want them to be?3.How long do we have to get them there?4.How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there?5.What resources will move them at that rate?

85

Tier II

Key Questions – Which students need targeted interventions?– How effective are targeted interventions?– How are targeted interventions linked to Tier I?– How well are Tier II interventions implemented?

86

Tier II• Focus of School-based Intervention Team

– Identifying students needing targeted interventions

– Developing/Implementing interventions that address student needs

• Interventions – small group – targeted group interventions

Academic Calendars andSchool Schedules

Academic Calendars

• SBLT Meetings• Grade-Level Meetings• Data Days

– Minimum of 3 per year• Professional Development and Support• Outcome Sharing Events

– Communication and Celebration

Schedules

• Maximize academic engaged time in critical areas

• Reflect needs of students• Maximize use of all staff• Ensure time allocated for Tiers 1, 2 and 3• Provide meeting time for tier integration work

Example of Grade Level Schedule

Resources to Assist with Scheduling Reading Intervention

Found at www.fcrr.org/Interventions

• Teaching All Students to Read: Practices from Reading First Schools with Strong Intervention Outcomes: Summary and Complete Documents available

– Principal’s Action Plan Outline for Building a Successful School-Wide Intervention Program

• Intensive Reading Interventions for Struggling Readers in Early Elementary School: A Principal’s Guide

– A Principal’s Guide to Intensive Reading Interventions for Struggling Readings in Reading First Schools: A Brochure

Table Top Activity

• How could you modify schedules to incorporate time for Tier 2 and 3 activities?

What do we know about the characteristics of effective interventions?

• They always increase the intensity of instruction - they accelerate learning

They always provide many more opportunities for re-teaching, review, and practice

They are focused carefully on the most essential learning needs of the students.

Interventions: Tier 2

• First resource is TIME (AET)– HOW much more time is needed?

• Second resource is curriculum– WHAT does the student need?

• Third resource is personnel– WHO or WHERE will it be provided?

Tier 2: Getting TIME• “Free” time--does not require additional personnel

– Staggering instruction – Differentiating instruction– Cross grade instruction– Skill-based instruction

• Standard Protocol Grouping• Reduced range of “standard” curriculum• After-School• Home-Based

Tier 2: Curriculum• Standard protocol approach• Focus on essential skills• Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of core

instruction• Linked directly to core instruction materials and benchmarks• Criterion for effectiveness is 70% of students receiving Tier 2

will reach benchmarks

3 Fs + 1 S + Data + PD = Effective & Powerful Instruction

• Frequency and duration of meeting in small groups – every day, etc.

• Focus of instruction (the What) – work in vocabulary, phonics, comprehension, etc.

• Format of lesson (the How) – determining the lesson structure and the level of scaffolding, modeling, explicitness, etc.

• Size of instructional group – 3, 6, or 8 students, etc.

• Use data to help determine the 3 Fs and 1 S (the Why)

• Provide professional development in the use of data and in the 3 Fs and 1 S

Integrating the Tiers

Tier Functions/Integration

• How the Tiers work

• Time aggregation

• Tier integration

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.

Time Aggregation

• Tier 2 and 3 in addition to Tier 1

• Tier 3 time equal to or greater than Tiers 1 + 2– Alternative curriculum

• Time of core instruction determines Tiers 2 and 3

Instructional Integration

• Focus of Tiers 2 and 3 is specialized instructional strategies, time and focus of instruction

• Application of instructional strategies should include application to core instructional materials and content

• Single intervention plan with focus, activities and content contributed by each provider

• Agreement on progress monitoring level and content (Should be Tier 1)

Table Top Case Study

• 5th grade student• Reading Level: beginning 2nd grade in fluency,

end of 4th in listening comprehension, beginning 3rd in reading comprehension. Vocabulary at mid-4th grade level.

• Receiving services through SLD program and Title I Reading

Progress Monitoring

Tier 2

Van R. Butler • What is the Problem?Core is effective for fluency. Students needing Tier II services for fluency (7) and 24 were

identified with reading comprehension problems.

• Why is it occurring?Fluency: Students need additional exposure to phonemic awareness strategies.RC: Students need additional time practicing comprehension strategies.

• What are we going to do about it?Fluency: Students will be provided Great Leaps strategies 3 days per week for 20 minutes

per day.RC: Implementation of new reading series, emphasizing the big 5 for reading

comprehension. Tier II services include CORE plus 20 minutes of practice in the supplemental materials workbook

• The Response to the intervention

86.3%

8.7%

5.2%

94.2%

4.3%1.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 1st Grade Total (DIBELS 3) 08-09 2nd Grade Total (DIBELS 1)

Van R. Butler Elementary School Comparison of 07-08 First Grade to 08-09 Second Grade

Instructional Level


100.0%

0.0%0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

80.0%

20.0%

0.0%

85.4%

10.2%

4.5%

80.0%

0.0%

20.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Asian-Islander(1st)

07-08 Black (1st) 07-08 Hispanic (1st) 07-08 Multi-Racial(1st)

07-08 White 07-08 Unreported

Van R. Butler Elementary School 07-08 First Grade



100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

95.3%

3.6%1.3%

78.6%

14.3%

7.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Asian-Islander(2nd)

08-09 Black (2nd) 08-09 Hispanic (2nd) 08-09 Multi-Racial(2nd)

08-09 White (2nd) 08-09 Unreported(14)

Van R. Butler Elementary School 08-09 Second Grade



87.0%

13.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Low SES (1st) 08-09 Low SES (2nd)

Van R. Butler Elementary School Low Socio-Economic Status

Instructional Level


TIER III: Intensive, Individualized

111

Tier III For Approx 5% of Students

Core

+Supplemental

+Intensive Individual Instruction

…to achieve benchmarks

1.Where is the student performing now?2.Where do we want him to be?3.How long do we have to get him there?4.What supports has he received?5.What resources will move him at that rate?

Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals.

112

Tier III

Key Questions– What specific interventions are needed at Tier III?

Increased intensity of Tier II intervention? Different, individualized intervention?

– How well are Tier III interventions implemented? – What is the student’s response to evidence-based

interventions?

113

Tier III

• Focus of School-based Intervention Team– Identify individual academic and behavioral issues

through data analysis– Develop intensive individual interventions & supports– Ensure that these interventions and supports are linked

to core instruction– Assess integrity and intensity of interventions

114

Tier III: Problem-solving protocol • Identify target & replacement behavior• Identify peer group for comparison

– Collect baseline & progress monitoring data (frequency, duration)– Gap analysis - compare student to peer group and expectation

• Determine function of the behavior (FBA)• Develop/Implement interventions based on FBA (BIP)• Monitor/Evaluate/Modify interventions based on data

– Document response to intervention – Problem solving continues based on response to intervention

Tier 3 Decisions

• GAP?

• Rate??

• Independent Functioning?– Fade Intervention to Supplemental Level– Evaluate Rate

Ways that instruction must be made more powerful for students “at-risk” for reading difficulties.

More instructional time

More powerful instruction involves:

Smaller instructional groups

Clearer and more detailed explanations

More systematic instructional sequences

More extensive opportunities for guided practice

More opportunities for error correction and feedback

More precisely targeted at right level

resources

skill

What are the logistics of Tier 3 instruction?

– Specific place and time set aside on the schedule (daily)– Who will provide it? (classroom teacher or outside support

– Reading specialist, ESE, SLP, etc.)– Materials/how will the provider access them?– Common planning time established between the two

providers, if applicable– Establishing guidelines for when to evaluate the

effectiveness of instruction and guidelines to determine what is a “good” response

Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM)

K-2 – all of the same TDI tasks– ORF in grades 1 and 23-12 – ORF at grades 3-5– MAZE at grades K-12– Informal toolkit with:

• Instructional Level reading comprehension passages & passage-specific Question & Response templates

• Multiple Lexiled passages for oral reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension

• Phonics Inventory• Sight Word Inventory• Instructional Implications of Word Analysis Task

Download - Supporting the Implementation of Response to Intervention

Top Related