welcome kaskaskia special education district rti workshop day 1 july 23, 2008

Welcome

Kaskaskia Special Education District

RTI Workshop

Day 1

July 23, 2008

Response to Intervention (RTI) Marica Cullen, Illinois State Department

of Education Ellen Hunter, Private Consultant Allison Layland, Center for Research on

Learning

Outcomes Participants will

Understand the RTI framework and the current research

Understand the Illinois RTI expectations Understand the components of RTI and their own

data Understand the systems change piece of RTI Begin planning for RTI implementation Be prepared to engage others in the RTI

discussion in their districts

RTI Organizational framework for instructional

and curricular decisions and practices based upon students’ responses.

RTI Components Screening Tiers of Instruction Progress Monitoring Fidelity Indicators

RTI “Response to intervention integrates assessment and

intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems.

Within RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress provide evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify with learning disabilities or other disabilities.”

National Center on Response to Interventionwww.rti4success.org

Why is RTI at secondary level? Nationally 30% of students do not graduate

on time. Every year 1.3 million students do not

graduate with their peers. That means every school day we lose 7,000 students.

68% of high school students graduate unprepared for college and 53% of college students enroll in remedial level courses.

Greene & Forster (2003); Swanson (2004); NCES (2001)

Literacy crisis More than 8 million students in grades 4

through 12 read far below grade level. Only about one third of 8th graders read

at grade level. Among low income 8th graders, only

15% read at grade level.

Perie et al. (2005)

NAEP reading scores The average reading score for 8th

graders was up 1 point since 2005 and 3 points since 1992. There was no difference between the performance of students in 2007 and 2003.

NAEP (2007)

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

NAEP math scores The national average mathematics score at 8th grade

showed a 1 point increase between 2003 and 2005 and was 16 points higher in 2005 than in 1990.

82% of 4th graders and 71% of 8th graders performed at or above the basic level in math compared to 50% and 52%, respectively, in 1990.

NAEP (2007)

Illinois NAEP score change

8th grade reading showed no change from 2005 to 2007 (31%)

8th grade math showed gain of 2 points from 2005 to 2007 (31%)

15% of students are identified as having IEPs ISAT

2006-07 81% of 8th grade students and 52.7% of 11th grade students met or exceeded in reading

2006-07 81.3% of 8th grade students and 52.7% of 11th grade students met or exceeded in math

Why RTI? Focuses on all students

Uses data for decision-making

Addresses students who are at risk or struggling early

What does research say? Multiple models are described in the

literature, however they all have same key components Effective high quality general education instruction Universal school wide screening Progress monitoring Levels of prevention or intervention Fidelity of implementation

What does research say? Currently no published scientifically based

research studies evaluating the implementation of an RTI model at the secondary level.

There have been case studies. Bacon, 2005 Duffy, 2007 Fisher, 2001 Johnson & Smith, 2008 Papalewis, 2004 Windram & Scierka, 2007

Case Studies Activity

Case Studies Simply applying the same models used at

elementary schools will not work in secondary schools. 5 to 7 teachers instead of 1 to 3 Shift from learning to read to read to learn Emphasis on content knowledge Emphasis on reading and writing expository text Less frequent use of data Content specific collaboration Schedules Student non-school responsibilities

What does RTI look like?

What does RTI look like? Key elements

High quality general education Universal screening of academics and behavior Progress monitoring Levels of intervention Fidelity checks

+ Leadership+ On-going professional development

Alignment with Illinois Leadership

High quality general education instruction

Universal screening Progress monitoring

Levels of intervention Fidelity

On-going professional development

Consensus building and collaboration

Standards-based curriculum and research-based instruction

Research-based assessment practices

Student intervention/problem solving teams

Intervention strategy identification

Resource allocation On-going professional

development

Illinois Response to Intervention (RtI) Background

IDEA Regulations effective October 13, 2006

Illinois Part 226.130 Rules adopted June 28, 2007

IDEA Regulations- October 2006

Require the State must not require the use of a severe

discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability

must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention

IDEA Regulations- October 2006

Require the Evaluation Team Must document how the child responds to scientific,

research-based interventions document that the child does not achieve

adequately or make sufficient progress in state-approved grade-level standards

consider data that demonstrates appropriate instruction delivered by qualified personnel and documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals

Illinois Part 226.130 RulesRequire

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 300.309

development and distribution of a State RtI Plan by January 1, 2008 by the State Superintendent in collaboration with professional organizations outlining the professional development that is necessary and other activities and resources that are essential for implementation

Illinois Part 226.130 Rules

Require Illinois districts complete a plan for transition

to the use of a process that determines how the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedure by January 1, 2009

Illinois districts implement RtI as part of their evaluation procedure for making SLD determinations by the 2010-2011 academic year

Participating Stakeholder Groups

Illinois Education Association Illinois Federation of Teachers Illinois State Advisory Council on the Education of

Children with Disabilities Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education Illinois Association of School Administrators Regional Offices of Education Parent Initiative Centers Illinois Institutions of Higher Education Illinois State Board of Education

Illinois Plan Components Introduction/belief statements for RtI Definition of RtI and Problem Solving Link between RtI and specific learning disability eligibility

determination Process for Implementation Implementation Timelines Funding Considerations ISBE Evaluation Plan Supporting Resources

Starting the District Process Learn what RtI is and what it isn’t

Read the State Response to Intervention Plan posted on the ISBE website

Read the FAQ document produced by ISBE

Complete the Self-Assessment

Create a Comprehensive District RtI Team

District Self-Assessment

District Self-Assessment Template

Purpose is to identify district and state needs

District reviews seven areas of implementation:

Due May 23, 2008

Reviewed by ISBE Team Summer 2008 to determine State Needs

Self-Assessment Areas Consensus Building and Collaboration Standards-Based Curriculum and Research-Based

Instruction Research-Based Assessment Practices Student Intervention/Problem Solving Team Process Intervention Strategy Identification Resources Allocation Ongoing Professional Development for Effective RtI

Self-Assessment Format

Preliminary Findings from ISBE Review of District Responses

Strongest Indicators –leadership for collaboration, standards-aligned curricula

Weakest Indicators – assessments, parent involvement, resource allocation

Most Divergent Indicator – role of Problem Solving Team

Professional Development Needs Awareness/Introductory Sessions Resources to determine quality PD Universal screening/progress

monitoring tools Data-driven decision making

District RtI Plan Rationale Process Timeline Requirements

District Improvement Plan Access

http://iirc.niu.edu/

Complete RtI Plan Components

Section I-B – Local Assessment Data Data Factors Conclusions

Section I-C – Item 1 Other Data Attributes and Challenges Data Factors Conclusions

Complete RtI Plan Components

Section I-C – Item 3 Other Data Parent Involvement Data Factors Conclusions

Section I-D – Key Factors Data Factors Conclusions

Complete RtI Plan Components Section II-A – Action Plan RtI Objective Section II-B – Student Strategies and Activities

for RtI Section II-C – Professional Development

Strategies and Activities for RtI Section II-D - Parent Involvement Strategies

and Activities for RtI Section II-E – Monitoring Process for RtI Section III-A – Development, Review and

Implementation Stakeholder Involvement

Crosswalk of Self-Assessment and RtI Plan Components

Self Assessment Section

District Improvement Plan

I. Consensus Building and Collaboration

Section III-A Stakeholder Involvement

Section I-C, Item 3Parent Involvement




II. Curriculum and Instruction

Section I-C, Item 1 Attributes and Challenges

Section I-DData and Analysis Key Factors




III. Assessment Practices

Section I-B Local Assessment




IV. Intervention/ Problem-Solving Team


Section I-C, Item CParent Involvement




V. Intervention Strategy Identification


Section I-CParent Involvement

Section II-BStudent Strategies and Activities

Section II-DParent Involvement Strategies and Activities

Section II-EMonitoring




VI. Resources Allocation

Section II-B Student Strategies and Activities

Section II-CProfessional Development Strategies and Activities

Section II-DParent Involvement Strategies and Activities

Section II-EMonitoring




VII. Professional Development

Section II-CProfessional Development Strategies and Activities

Process Questions

Access to IIRC Writing the RtI Plan Local Approvals of the District RtI Plan Submitting the RtI Plan ISBE Review of RtI Plan

Getting Started To implement any initiative effectively

strong leaders are needed who Understand systems change Take time to identify where stakeholders

are within the change process Adjust leadership style to assist people

with the change process

Leadership McREL (2000) found that there are two

primary variables that determine whether or not leadership will have a positive or negative impact on student achievement Whether leaders properly identify and focus on

improving the practices that have the most impact on student achievement.

Whether leaders properly understand the magnitude or “order” of change and adjust their leadership practices accordingly.

Magnitude of change

First Order Extension of the past Consistent with

prevailing organizational norms

Congruent with personal values

Easily learned using existing knowledge

Second Order Break with the past Inconsistent with

prevailing organizational norms

Incongruent with personal values

Requires learning new knowledge and skills

McREL (2000)

Change “It’s not so much that we’re afraid of

change or so in love with the old ways, but it’s that place in between we fear…it’s like being between trapezes. It’s Linus when his blanket is in the dryer. There’s nothing to hold on to.”

Marilyn FergusonThe Aquarian Conspiracy

Allow time for Human “sense-making”

Most conventional theories of change fail to take into account the complexity of human sense-making….Sense-making is not the simple decoding of the policy message. In general, the process of comprehension is an active process of interpretation that draws on the individual’s rich knowledge base of understandings, beliefs, and attitudes.

Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer (2002)

Map the terrain

Bolman & Deal (2003)

POWER

Low

High

CHANGEPro-changeAgainst change

Schools as systems

ORGANIZATION

External EnvironmentStakeholders

Resource AllocationTechnology

Accountability

TECHNOLOGY

StandardsCurriculumInstruction

Assessment

PERSONAL

Staff DevelopmentLeadership & SupervisionInternal Communication

Climate & Culture

Organization What are our organization support

systems? Data and Accountability School Improvement Finance Technology

How will these support systems contribute to this initiative?

McREL (2000)

Organization Leadership teams at the school level

Literacy or Math teams Teams across subject areas or within subject

areas Data analysis teams

Access and analyze critical data Set measurable goals to close gaps Brainstorm or create instructional strategies

What is already in place that is working and aligns with this initiative?

Personal How will we communicate plans to students,

parents, staff, and community? What support is needed to implement this at the

classroom level? How do we create a culture that believes that all

students can learn? What evidence would we have of this?

What experiences do the staff need to effectively implement this?

Do we have “the right people in the right seat on the bus”? Jim Collins (2001)

McREL (2000)

Technical Are our standards, curriculum and assessments

aligned to ensure student success? Do we have a research-based effective core

curriculum? What evidence do we have that 80 % of our

students are success with the general education instruction?

Do we have both formative and summative assessments in place? How do they fit within an RTI framework?

Technical What preventions or interventions do we have

in place now and how effective are they? What evidence do we have that the

instruction being implemented with fidelity? Do our schedules allow for time

For teacher dialogue around data and instruction For interventions

Technical Examine your student data How would you fill in your triangle?

Group Work Time

Part 1. Consensus and Collaboration

Role of Assessment Ellen Hunter

The 7 Purposes of Assessment To assist student learning To identify student strengths and

weaknesses To assess the effectiveness of a

particular instructional strategy To assess and improve the

effectiveness of curriculum programs

7 Purposes… To assess and improve teaching

effectiveness To provide data that assists in decision

making To communicate with and involve

parents

Kellough & Kellough 1999

Types of AssessmentScreeningProgress MonitoringDiagnosticSummative/Outcome

Screening

Provides a beginning assessment of the student’s preparation for a task and/or grade level instruction

First “alert” that the student will need extra help to make adequate yearly progress

Progress Monitoring

Quick samples of critical skills

Keeps teacher(s) informed about the student’s progress

Types of Progress Monitoring

BenchmarkQuick samples of critical skills at predetermined intervals

Ongoing or IntensiveMore frequent assessment or sampling to assure continued growth or help change the directions of instruction

3 Tiers of Progress Monitoring

• Benchmark TestingGoal: Evaluation of all students at designated periods

• Strategic MonitoringGoal: Monitoring individual students using ongoing information about specific skills.

• Intensive MonitoringGoal: Based on an individualized plan, monitoring individual students using ongoing information about specific skills and interventions.

How it fits

Progress Monitoring in RTIProgress Monitoring in RTI

Intensive Monitoring

•Intensive interventions based on comprehensive evaluation.•For students with most intensive needs that may be several grade levels behind.•Monitoring occurs more often to ensure intervention is working (e.g., every 1-2 weeks).•Approximately 1-5% of students.

Strategic Monitoring•Targeted interventions based on data that students are at-risk of failure.•For students who are struggling with specific skills•Monitoring occurs more than at the universal level to ensure intervention is working (e.g., every 4-6 weeks).•Approximately 5-10% of students. Universal Level

•Research-based, high quality general education.•Screening and benchmark testing for ALL students.•Data continues to inform instruction, but less frequently (e.g., 3 times a year).•Enough monitoring for 80-90% of students.

Assessment in Tier I•Progress monitoring is conducted primarily using school-wide screenings three times per year

•Classroom assessments •Benchmarks •Quarterly and Unit Assessments

Assessment in Tier II:• Progress is monitored more often (weekly, bi-monthly)

• Progress is monitored repeatedly for a period of time using consistent CBM tool

• Trends in performance are used to gauge effectiveness of supports and interventions

• Ineffective intervention plans are changed in a timely manner

• Intervention plans are modified based on emerging needs

Progress Monitoring in Tier III: More often Progress monitoring may need to happen

every week; however, depending on the grade level and/or skill less often may be sufficient or more frequently may be necessary

Modifications are made to individualized instruction in response to the data collected

Diagnostic Used to measure a variety of academic and

cognitive skills

Designed to provide a more precise and detailed picture of the student’s strengths and weaknesses

Usually administered after a student fails to make adequate progress following more intensive or specific intervention

Diagnostic Assessment Digging deeper into the root cause of

the reading delay Specific measures in each of the

essential skill areas Range from quick, informal instruments

to comprehensive, formal measures

Questions to be Answered by Diagnostic Assessments In which skill areas is this student

achieving at expected levels?

In which skill areas is the student making less than expected progress?

What types, intensity, and duration of interventions are likely to be effective in addressing this student’s skill needs?

Summative or Outcome Assessment Given at end of school year

Used to help schools’ evaluate their overall effectiveness

Frequently required by state or specific federal program(s) to show adequate yearly progress

Colorado Rural Secondary Literacy Project

22 School DistrictsEach district has less than 2,000 students grades 6-12

Organized into single sites or consortiums

Universal Screening

Rural Secondary Literacy Project

Initial Screening

What screening tests were used?

Criteria for selection: Appropriate for adolescents - Normed through

age 18 Efficient - Quick to administer and score Effective - Provides information on skills highly

related to competent reading Solid - documented reliability and validity

So? Which tests met those criteria?

Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency Test of Word Reading Efficiency

Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF)

THEGIRLRANSHEWENTUP

THEHILLITWASAWARMDAY

ANDTHEFOXJUMPEDINTO

THERIVER

TOSCRF A measure of silent contextual reading

fluency Scores reflect competence (or lack of) in

many aspects of reading (e.g., word identification, comprehension, fluency)

Students with low standard scores are likely to show deficiencies in all kinds of reading skills, including decoding, word identification, and comprehension.

TOSCRF Measures essential interrelated silent reading skills

including the ability to: Recognize printed words and their meanings Use one’s mastery of syntax and morphology to facilitate

understanding the meaning of written sentences and passages

Incorporate word and grammar knowledge to quickly grasp the meaning of contextual material

Read and understand contextual material at a pace fact enough to make silent reading practical

Uses of the TOSCRF Used to identify students who are

struggling with reading and estimate the degree of deficits

Document growth in reading intervention

TOSCRF Can be administered by classroom

teachers, reading specialists, special education teachers, educational diagnosticians and school psychologists

Appropriate for ages 7-0 through 18-11 (grades 2through 12)

TOSCRF

Group or Individual administration Timed measure (3 minutes) Total testing time is approximately 10

minutes Has four (4) different forms

TOSCRF Results Above 40th%ile + Proficient CSAP Above the 40th %ile + Low CSAP

Administer the TOSWRF

Below the 40th %ile + Low CSAP Administer the TOWRE

TOSWRF Measures the ability to recognize

printed words accurately and efficiently

Word Identification and speed (automaticity)

Word Comprehension

Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF)

Upintocamegoatrunswimskykicktoo

littlebusaxekittenstreamorangekeep

TOSWRF Can be administered by classroom and

special education teachers, reading specialists and educational psychologists

Group or individual administration Appropriate for ages 6-6 through 17-11 Timed measure (3 minutes) Total testing time is less than ten minutes

TOSWRF Results Below the 40th %ile, administer the

TOWRE

TOWRE Measures efficient word recognition

Measures automaticity of one’s phonetic word attack skills

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)

big gan

tree rupp

known nasp

school luddy

TOWRE

Includes two subtests

Sight Word Efficiency Phonemic Decoding Efficiency

TOWRE

Timed measures: each subtest is 45 seconds

Appropriate for ages 6-0 through 24-11

Screening/Services Funnels

SCREENINGAll students:

CSAP andTest of Silent

Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF)

Some Studentsgive Test of Silent

Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF)

Few Students give

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE):

Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding

Subtests

SERVICES

Tier One Reading InstructionGenerally, students who are proficient

and above in reading AND above the 40%tile on TOSCRF.

Tier Two Reading Instruction*Generally, students who are low in CSAP and

low on TOSCRF or TOSWRF,

but relatively high on TOWRE.

Tier Three Reading Instruction*Generally, students

who are lowon TOWRE

Maximum testing time whole process: 30 minutes, 20 group, 10 individual.

*Furtherassessment will be needed laterfor instructionalplanning.

Screening DataStudent #

Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level

Percentile

Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level

Percentile

State Level

Percentile

Difference

TOWRF %

TOCRF %

TOWRE % Site Word

TOWRE %

Phonemic

1 4 594 48 5 676 85 37 50

2 4 640 82 5 663 78 -4 53

3 5 672 83 N/S 82

4 4 609 60 5 681 87 27

5 4 613 63 5 648 69 6 47 27

6 4 615 65 5 643 66 1 30 37 45 36

7 4 533 14 5 534 12 -2 14 35 39

8 4 576 35 5 650 71 36 77

9 5 587 31 N/S

10 4 564 28 5 581 28 35 45 45 74

11 4 519 10 5 528 10 35 21 32

12 4 616 66 5 674 84 18 91

13 4 572 32 5 619 50 18 30 50 66

14 4 433 1 5 382 0 -1 5 16 7

15 4 621 69 5 661 77 8

16 4 644 84 5 686 89 5 47

17 4 521 11 5 603 40 29 19 74 55

18 4 569 30 5 607 42 12 73 70

Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level Percentile

Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level

Percentile

State Level Percentil

e

TOCRF%

TOWRF%

TOWRE % Site

Word

TOWRE % Phonemic

Scantron SS

Scantron %tile

Tier I, II, III

5584606831 Cash James

Merritt 6 499 4 7 502 4 32 6 12 2470 8 37930258482 Kalee Ann Beach 6 518 6 7 523 5 -1 7 2386 6 39887749401 Christian Way

neHardesty

6 513 5 7 543 8 3 18 2433 7 32078523779 Jason Rich

ardHernande

z7 542 8 N/S 21 17 10 2266 3 3

5128723445 Juan De Dios

Hernandez

6 566 16 7 548 9 -7 19 2663 17 38712041956 Sachell Julia Muniz 6 537 9 7 553 10 1 30 14 7 2751 25 31883944688 Cory Allen Dyer 6 605 33 7 557 11 -22 1 2673 18 31440817644 Andrew Jam

esHillers 7 557 11 N/S 39 27 39 2418 7 3

1146030381 Feliz Marisol

Faudoa 6 605 33 7 571 14 -19 77 18 45 25 2674 18 2l4956949611 Andrea Virgi

niaMorado 6 487 3 7 572 14 11 23 13 6 2365 5 3

1413964945 Jacob Michael

Rogakis 6 504 4 7 576 15 11 19 21 6 2648 16 38005109272 Mikel Rya

nHeinz 6 585 23 7 580 16 -7 42 14 14 2677 18 3

5548076955 Susana Eloisa

Arellano 6 561 14 7 583 17 3 73 14 67 91 2698 20 2l6441043585 Vanessa Daw

nWadswor

th6 617 40 7 582 17 -23 68 2509 9 2l

6574273702 Julia Marie

Nagel 6 506 4 7 584 18 14 1 2197 2 37254720197 Derek Edw

ardSchiefer 6 572 18 7 586 19 1 30 45 80 2714 21 2h

9039806752 Keith Anthony

Casares 6 555 13 7 588 19 6 2455 8 35468762676 Perla Yudi

tBlanco

Escobedo6 555 13 7 592 21 8 39 14 7 2422 7 3

9823535679 Trevor John Ewing 6 576 19 7 593 21 2 25 2518 10 33595063909 Eric Paul Kler 6 618 41 7 597 23 -18 81 61 2682 18 2h5468725879 Dallas Lee Schreiber 6 609 36 7 598 23 -13 53 30 35 25 2855 39 2h2264664574 Chelsea Mari

eGust 6 616 40 7 599 24 -16 37 37 36 39 2590 12 2l

2851565769 Eduardo Daniel

Rincon 6 523 6 7 603 25 19 61 25 29 55 2693 19 2l2314862537 Alexandr

aElen

aMarquez 6 599 30 7 602 25 -5 81 90 2648 16 2h

2322661643 Jesus Hernan

Quinones 6 533 8 7 604 26 18 52 35 2131 2 2l

Grade

Total Scale Score


Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level

Percentile


e

TOCRF%

TOWRF%

TOWRE % Site

Word

TOWRE % Phonemic

Scantron SS

Scantron %tile

Tier I, II, III

1354513304 Alicia Juanita

Delgado 6 602 31 7 606 27 -4 89 82 2592 13 2h8088210344 Jaime Nmn Villarreal 6 566 16 7 607 27 11 27 16 13 2924 51 34041362251 Alejandro Nmn Rincon 6 594 27 7 608 28 1 89 81 2723 22 2h1318950949 Wesley Scot

tLamb 6 631 50 7 617 33 -17 18 21 39 2903 47 2h

4204790289 Jorge Eduardo

Valenzuela

6 600 30 7 619 34 4 63 3032 72 1m4414725985 Catherine-

MarrieAlexandri

Murray 7 619 34 N/S

3640799383 Skyler Dakota

Dixon 6 577 20 7 621 35 15 30 13 29 10 2747 25 2l7102623864 Tanner Way

neKelly 6 580 21 7 621 35 14 47 2872 42 2h

3941041028 Jessica Marie

Pena 6 612 37 7 623 36 -1 37 2847 38 35108203804 Shane Math

ewShostrom 6 613 38 7 625 37 -1 58 45 2773 28 1m

3105372468 Niklaus Woodrow

Krause 6 615 39 7 631 41 2 63 3000 66 11170963498 Makaila Bria

neCarey 6 598 29 7 638 45 16 30 2550 11 2h

2164270902 Corrie Lee Peeler 6 565 16 7 638 45 29 47 53 2697 20 2h6104714083 Mariah Nicol Brandly 6 627 47 7 638 45 -2 81 2913 48 15006861944 Kayla June Carroll 6 633 52 7 637 45 -7 50 2923 51 14770680597 Joseph Dani

elO'Connor 6 605 33 7 639 46 13 55 2781 29 1m

1693604884 Nicholas Zeena

Comer 6 607 34 7 640 47 13 18 27 50 14 2855 39 2?8873045202 Karelly Ram

osArroyo 6 627 47 7 640 47 81 2950 56 1

3163259812 Mollie Taylor

Brehon 6 645 60 7 641 47 -13 79 2817 34 15601452623 Dakota

KyEric Brown 7 640 47 N/S 68 2558 11 1

6074284617 Jacob Lee Ice 6 620 43 7 641 47 4 77 2738 24 13372520359 Ryan Matt

hewVan

Gelder6 589 25 7 643 49 24 47 2844 38 1m

9969253826 Nathan Douglas

Hunt 6 639 56 7 643 49 -7

4582184713 Megan Daryl

Dietz 6 630 49 7 650 53 4 89 2843 37 1m5498585804 Mary Eliza

bethGarcia 6 673 79 7 650 53 -26 50 3059 77 1

Grade

Total Scale Score


Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level

Percentile


e

TOCRF%

TOWRF%

TOWRE % Site

Word

TOWRE % Phonemic

Scantron SS

Scantron %tile

Tier I, II, III

6506572581 Weston Michael

Hager 6 656 68 7 651 54 -14 27 2908 47 fluency8012563199 Angel Nmn Saldivar 6 620 43 7 651 54 11 73 2752 25 1m5881440435 Zachary Aaro

nBurgess 7 655 57 N/S 16 23 42 42 3020 70 2h

6734928018 Austin Marc Reiher 6 606 34 7 655 57 23 77 2866 41 11247935631 Sara Eliza

bethMoss 6 628 48 7 656 58 10 75 2762 26 1

4517445584 Daniel Austin

Seela 6 615 39 7 656 58 19 58 2872 42 19352786799 Austin Nmn Naugle 6 645 60 7 660 60 25 2917 49 17255202304 Shelby Ray

eEdens 6 655 67 7 661 61 -6 79 2966 59 1

5402168578 Ethan Cole Heimforth 6 637 54 7 662 62 8 1 21 12 13 2887 44 2h9620907669 Anna Rho

desBrown 6 617 40 7 663 62 22 87 3011 68 1

3506910146 Paige Michelle

Guttersen 6 612 37 7 663 62 25 87 2933 52 11611313484 Kerry Ros

eWebster 6 679 82 7 664 63 -19 91 3114 84 1

2823485147 Alexander

Edward

Contreras 6 640 57 7 666 64 7 61 3106 83 13250420112 Brandon Mich

aelKoehler 6 616 40 7 667 65 25 37 3025 71 1

8862874972 Jeffery John Wardlaw 6 659 70 7 671 68 -2 23 21 2964 58 2h9737697593 Melody Ann

eHerl 6 688 86 7 671 68 -18 87 3154 88 1

1652539366 Justin Benjamin

Hunteman

7 671 68 N/S 63 2915 49 17160734146 Karli Bob

bi Jelden 6 671 77 7 671 68 -9 93 3069 78 1

1072043241 Manuel Jose Salazar 6 620 43 7 673 69 26 87 2974 60 14103326703 Hannah Chri

stineGlines 6 688 86 7 675 70 -16 65 3134 87 1

5651197084 Dillon Leroy

Hinchley 6 655 67 7 675 70 3 79 2794 30 17924120956 Jeremy Nmn Pacheco 6 651 64 7 676 71 7 89 3010 67 11643778688 Emily Ann Reese 6 679 82 7 678 72 -10 58 2962 58 14700739564 Jacob Lee Florez 6 632 51 7 680 73 22 68 2890 44 12769136025 Lauren Alain

naHaley 6 683 84 7 681 74 -10 75 3014 68 1

6490110298 Hayden Michael

Johnson 7 681 74 N/S 47 3037 73 1

Grade

Total Scale Score


Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level

Percentile


e

TOCRF%

TOWRF%

TOWRE % Site

Word

TOWRE % Phonemic

Scantron SS

Scantron %tile

Tier I, II, III

6132709033 Kailey Eileen

Kaiser 6 667 75 7 681 74 -1 97 3006 67 12808182645 Evelyn Lynn Martinez 6 661 71 7 682 75 4 89 2949 56 17742621688 Ciara Mae Abbott 6 638 55 7 684 76 21 63 3040 74 14296205818 Tyler Way

neBatt 6 681 83 7 686 77 -6 68 2986 63 1

3290656596 April Elizabeth

Smallwood

6 683 84 7 685 77 -7 65 2969 59 13148829024 Kayla Mari

eVan

Blaricom6 648 62 7 685 77 15 99 3012 68 1

9717958201 Jaden Pierce

Olearnick 7 690 79 N/S 42 2885 44 16992794114 Alex Jaco

bRuff 6 643 59 7 692 80 21 84 3103 83 1

3300856699 Ashlen May Barry 6 663 72 7 693 81 9 73 3114 84 18997140992 Katherine Mari

eWhite 6 687 86 7 693 81 -5 92 2918 49 1

8187807875 Darin George

Foss 6 685 85 7 694 82 -3 53 2982 62 18286473641 Tanner Mitc

hellGarretso

n6 697 90 7 695 82 -8 30 3237 95 1

9569504596 Holden James

Rexius 6 711 94 7 695 82 -12 61 3152 88 14247341534 Martha Jas

minRincon 6 702 92 7 695 82 -10 81 3278 97 1

7099678578 Sarah Leann

Haberman

6 687 86 7 699 84 -2 75 3059 77 14889910277 Reed Justi

nMerritt 6 650 63 7 700 85 22 63 3040 74 1

5497433861 Maricela Jesus

Gandara 6 661 71 7 704 86 15 70 3050 75 13824136536 Brianna Daw

nDevore 7 708 88 N/S 75 3176 91 1

3256467913 Heather Lynn Ferrara 6 694 89 7 708 88 -1 75 3155 89 11453431825 Danielle Eliza

bethLawhead 6 683 84 7 707 88 4 81 2931 52 1

6178879282 Brooke Elliott

Miller 6 675 80 7 707 88 8 61 2866 41 14067712133 Keenan Willi

amHall 6 696 90 7 711 89 -1 84 3238 95 1

4168350699 Jonathon Lee Klein 6 683 84 7 712 90 6 91 3004 66 15655133212 Kelsey Mari

eTait 6 675 80 7 716 91 11 73 3308 98 1

1460216741 Taylor Elizabeth

Wilson 6 653 66 7 716 91 25 79 2948 55 12885303872 Ryan Scot

tMcintyre 6 663 72 7 717 92 20 91 3225 94 1

Grade

Total Scale Score


Grade

Total Scale Score

State Level

Percentile


e

TOCRF%

TOWRF%

TOWRE % Site

Word

TOWRE % Phonemic

Scantron SS

Scantron %tile

Tier I, II, III

2129572597 Christen Brianne

Ransom 6 671 77 7 720 92 15 89 3107 83 12397650827 Kendra Luan Cunningh

am6 676 80 7 724 94 14 99 3103 83 1

3659960047 Derrick Dean

Schneider

6 688 86 7 728 94 8 37 3063 77 12535870435 Teesha Sha

ePrichard 6 673 79 7 729 95 16 89 3268 97 1

7225098821 Bailey Marie

Wilson 6 702 92 7 733 95 3 84 3081 80 13094579076 Robert Tayl

orAnders 6 686 85 7 737 96 11 84 3255 96 1

5651282264 Steven Edward

Babb 6 716 95 7 737 96 1 92 3066 77 11125891796 Nicholas John Gregory 6 701 91 7 741 97 6 81 3320 98 18741181274 Lincoln Jaco

bKorell 6 719 96 7 744 97 1 53 3141 87 1

9497310719 Melanie Marie

Mackey 6 676 80 7 741 97 17 68 3 16423826998 Amanda Rae Penningt

on6 720 96 7 748 98 2 92 3433 99 1

6791292039 Dominic Bell 47 2770 27 2h9295415297 Selena Brown 3046 74 ?4507313486 Morgan Leea

nnDagel 6 602 31 N/S 32 61 ?

3612199646 Jeremiah Thomas

Smith 6 614 39 N/S 4 7 25 2825 35 38197841566 Haley Watson 9 19 2421 7 35608158874 Ashley Alvarez 75 2954 57 13847307681 Dustin Bosveld 3147 88 17781701639 Chloe Lyn Carlson 6 696 90 N/S 17429874567 Steven Cisneros 91 2959 57 14750310308 Keith Crowder 61 75 2824 35 18685370091 Demrah Ditter 77 3174 90 11058367626 Shantel Rickard 55 2897 46 11816813473 Adriana Romero 92 3037 73 12099315493 Carrisa Sandoval 47 2988 63 19972610758 Luke Travis 3001 66 17612732077 Cassie Waln 97 2981 61 1

Sorting into 3 Tiers

3 Tiers and 6+ Groups

Tier I: Universal Instruction (1) or (1*) Tier II: Targeted Instruction (2)

Decoding Emphasis (2D) Vocabulary/Language Emphasis (2V) Fluency, Vocabulary, Comprehension (2) Fluency, Vocabulary, Comprehension (2)

Tier III: Intensive Instruction (3)

RSLP: Next steps

Develop a project-wide progress monitoring plan

Use consistent tools across all setting

Develop progress monitoring at all 3 tiers

Progress Monitoring

A research-based practice used to assess student’s academic performance and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction.

Progress Monitoring Goals

Estimate rates of student improvement Identify students who are not demonstrating

adequate progress Compare the efficacy of different forms of

instruction and design more effective, individualized instructional programs for problem learners

Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)

Consists of a simple set of procedures for repeated measurement of student growth

toward long range instructional goals

Curriculum-Based Assessment CBM is distinctive:

Each CBM test is of equivalent difficulty Samples the year-long curriculum

CBM is highly prescriptive and standardized

Reliable and valid scores

Sample CBM graphReading Graph for Micah

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

. 5-

Oct

6-

Oct

7-

Oct

12-

Oct

14-

Oct

19-

Oct

21-

Oct

26-

Oct

28-

Oct

3-

Nov

5-

Nov

10-

Nov

17-

Nov

22-

Nov

1-

Dec

2-

Dec

9-

Dec

16-

Dec

19-

Dec

23-

Dec

Date

Number of words read correctly in 1 minute

Baseline

Goal Line

Guided-reading Guided-reading + decoding practice

Guided-reading +

decoding practice + comprehension

Progress Monitoring Evaluates the Effectiveness of Interventions

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

MarchScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Ora

l Rea

ding

Flu

ency

Aimline

check-ups

January ORF screening = 170

Target is end-of-year benchmark = 200

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

Possible Approaches to Math and Reading Progress Monitoring

Universal Level Track performance on CSAP Use NWEA (MAP) or Scantron 3x each

year Benchmark with CBM 3x per year


Strategic Level Use CMB measures such as Maze, ORF,

Calculation and Problem-Solving probes for middle school

Establish a procedures for grades 9-12 that is research based and reliable


Intensive Level Use CBM measures more frequently Collect program specific progress

monitoring data

Group Work Time Part III Research-based Assessment

Practices

Wrap-up Day 1 Questions/Comments What to expect in Day 2

welcome kaskaskia special education district rti workshop day 1 july 23, 2008

Documents

grade students

college students

math slide

students responsiveness

students responses

performance of students

rti response

components of rti