How to Avoid the Most Common of RtI Pitfalls
RTI How to Avoid the Most Common Pitfalls of RtI Audio Conference/Webinar August 27, 2009 Wayne Callender [email protected] ©2009 Educational Research Newsletter www.ernweb.com Illiteracy Statistics Low literacy is the socio-economic factor prison inmates have in common 1 ©Wayne Callender RTI Where Illiteracy Leads In CA, AZ and IN if the child isn’t reading on 4th grade level when tested, they will plan to budget building another jail cell. Paul Schwartz, Principal in Residence, U. S. Dept. of Education Our Only Line of Defense? 2 ©Wayne Callender RTI Basic Skills and the Likelihood of Passing High Stakes Tests Source: Mark Shinn Simplify the Goal Intensive KT GN PN RV LS LM GW LA JEM Strategic EP JB EP SS MW wL JT HH DC JG LB JM BL Benchmark WP RH DM JC NC TC BJ CP JM CM CT Data Boards 3 ©Wayne Callender DL MB JS EK GC SZ LL SC GB CC MP TH RW RTI All we have is the 2% of a child’s lifetime to give them reading skills that will have impact on them for the remaining 98% of their lives! Struggling Kids (Reading) • Difficulties in decoding and word recognition are at the core of most reading difficulties. (Lyon, 1997) • Because our language is alphabetic, decoding is an essential and primary means of recognizing words. There are simply too many words in the English language to rely on memorization as a primary word identification strategy. (Bay Area Reading Task Force, 1996) • In a sample of 54 students, there was a 88% probability of being a poor reader d iin 4th grade d if you were a poor reader d iin 1st grade d (Juel (J l 1988) • Assuming students will ‘catch up’ with practice as usual is not wise. Catching up is a low-probability occurrence. – The bottom 20-25% will require a very different kind of effort in both the short and long run. © 2009 4 ©Wayne Callender RTI Struggling Kids (Math) • 9-year-olds with math difficulties have, on average, a 1st-grade 1st grade level of math knowledge. • 17-year-olds with math difficulties have, on average, a 5th-grade level of math knowledge. • Experts estimate that for every 2 years of school, children with math difficulties acquire about 1 year of mathematical proficiency. • Children with math disabilities often reach a learning plateau in 7th grade, and acquire only one year's worth of mathematical proficiency in grades 7-12 © 2009 An RTI School… Uses a tiered approach to meet student needs, (i.e., Benchmark, Strategic and Intensive). Maximizes use of regular and special education resources for the benefit of all students. Adopts interventions and instructional practices based in scientific research Uses assessment for instructional decision making (screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring) 5 ©Wayne Callender RTI 5 Common Pitfalls of Well- Intended Approaches to RTI 1. The “one-student-at-a-time” approach pp 2. Failure to Address/Include Student Service Programs 3. Assessment “Insanity” 4. Intervention as Remediation and Strategies 5 Ineffective Support Systems 5. Pitfalls and Remedies 1. Pitfall: The “one-student-at-a-time” approach h Remedy: Establish a School-Wide Approach to RTI 6 ©Wayne Callender RTI Contrasting Approaches School A: 9 Students screened 9 Support aligned to student needs and immediate 9 Support pre-arranged – structured for success 9 Monitoring system evaluates effectiveness of supports 9 Pre-established goals must be met 9 Effective Systems School B: 9 Struggling students identified for support 9 Support often a “one size fits all” or require students to “qualify” 9 Plan for support is “reactive” 9 Limited use of monitoring and student focused 9 Goal is time oriented 9 Limited or no evaluation of systems We Need a New Approach… Students are screened to identify those with basic skills deficits The school has a (tiered) plan for providing students with additional support. Each student’s learning is monitored with formative assessments on a timely y basis. The support is timely, systematic, and direct. Dufour, et. al (2004) 7 ©Wayne Callender RTI A SCHOOL-WIDE FRAMEWORK … Three Levels of Learners Benchmark Strategic: •Generally can meet standards •Average A llearner •Can adapt and adjust to teacher’s style •Gaps in skill and knowledge • 1-2 years behind (40th to 20th percentile) • Struggles academically - may appear unmotivated •Can read,, but often has specific p skill deficits ((i.e.,, comp.) p) •May not complete homework Intensive: •Tests below the 20th percentile •Frustrated and unmotivated •Reading skills are very limited - more than 2 years below •Behaviors and absenteeism •Difficulty in content area classes The Need for An Intervention Structure at the Secondary Level Secondary schools must have a system t for f addressing dd i student t d t needs. ¾ Reading difficulties: The number 1 reason students struggle at the secondary level ¾ Secondary students typically do not receive the necessary intervention to bring about improved reading/academic outcomes ¾Basic skill deficits as well as motivational issues can be effectively addressed 8 ©Wayne Callender RTI Pitfalls and Remedies 2. Pitfall: Failure to Address/Include Student S i P Service Programs Remedy: Tiered and Aligned Instructional Supports for ALL Students Re-Define Educational Services How Do We Structure Supports? ¾Benchmark (Tier 1) – will do fine with good core instruction (Most?) ¾Strategic (Tier 2) – will need supplemental and reinforcement instruction to hit targets (Some?) ¾Intensive (Tier 3) – will need an intensive support that accelerates learning in key skill areas (Few?) 9 ©Wayne Callender RTI Student Support According to Need Rather than Category Enter a School-Wide System for Student Success Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Disability Categories Intensive, Individual Interventions •Individual Students •Assessment-based •High Intensity •Of longer duration Intensive, Individual Interventions •Individual Students •Assessment-based •Intense, durable procedures VI Targeted Group Interventions •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response MR SL Targeted Group Interventions •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response DB AUT TBI HI OI Universal Interventions •All students •Preventive, proactive SED OHI Universal Interventions •All settings, all students •Preventive, proactive SLD DF MULT School / District (Service-Focused) Screening Screening Eligibility SPECIAL EDUCATION TITLE Programming/ Strategies Evaluation Eligibility Evaluation Screening Programming/ Strategies Exiting Exiting Eligibility Evaluation ________ ________ Programming/ Strategies Screening Exiting Eligibility Eligibility AT-RISK LEP Programming/ Strategies Evaluation Screening Evaluation Exiting 10 ©Wayne Callender Exiting Programming/ Strategies RTI Why Didn’t it Work? • Too much emphasis on procedure procedure, too little on effective instructional practices (e.g., confidentiality) • Low Treatment Validity related to Categories • Too much and too little information • Special Education…Desire for a Magic Bullet Pitfalls and Remedies 3. Pitfall: Assessment Insanity Remedy: Outcomes Driven Approach to Assessment – use little assessment well 11 ©Wayne Callender RTI Outcomes-Driven Model for RTI Decisions ODM Step Decisions/Questions Data Are there students who may need support? How many? Which students? Screening data (Benchmark data) 2. Validate Need Are we confident that the identified students need support? Diagnostic assessment data and additional information as needed 3. Plan and Implement Support What level of support for which students? How to group students? What goals, specific skills, curriculum/program, instructional strategies? Diagnostic assessment data and additional information as needed 4. Evaluate and Modifyy Support Is the support effective for individual students? Progress Monitoring data and formative evaluation 5. Evaluate Outcomes As a school/district: How effective is our core (Tier I) support? How effective is our supplemental (Tier II) support? How effective is our intensive intervention (Tier III) support? Outcome Assessment information (Benchmark data) 1. Identify Need Assessment 4 Purposes of Assessment Screening Identify Concern Identify Level of Concern Diagnostic Progress Monitoring Outcome Identify Skill Deficits What Needs to be Taught? Is it Working? Ensure Gap is Closing at Desired Rate Predicted by Screening and Progress Monitoring 12 ©Wayne Callender RTI Curriculum-Based Measurement • General Outcome Measure – Ability to reflect improvement in broad areas of academic skills (reading, writing, and math) • Sensitive to small increments of change • Curriculum validity (match between measure and instructional objectives) • Meets M t appropriate i t psychometric h t i standards t d d Basic CBM Measures Area Measure Scored R di Reading 1 minute i t off orall reading from text Reading comprehension # WRC # errors Maze Written Expression Math Computation # of words correctly identified 3 minutes of # TWW writing, given a # CWS story starter 4 minutes of # CD computational problems 13 ©Wayne Callender RTI Purpose of Assessment Method of Assessment Screening g CBM Diagnostic Functional Assessment Progress Monitoring CBM/In-program Testing Screening Assessment • Brief assessment • Used to classify students as lacking basic skills or not lacking basic skills required for academic success • Assessment instrument must demonstrate: reliability and validity and accuracy of classification (at risk vs. not at risk) 14 ©Wayne Callender RTI Performances Predictive of Reading Success K-6 Measure Benchmark Established Initial Sound Fluency 25 or more Middle K Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 35 or more End K NWF 25 or more 50 or more End of K Middle 1st ORF 1st thru 6th End of year G1: > = 40 G2: > = 90 G3: > = 110 G5: > = 124 G6: > = 125 R-CBM and Predictability of Passing State Reading Tests STATE CUT SCORES (WCPM) ACCURACY IN PREDICTING PASS (3rd Grade) WA OR CO IL MI OH PA NC FL 100 110 110 110 100 00 110 114 110 110 90% 99% 90% 99% 72% % Unavailable 93% 100% 91% (Buck & Torgeson) Source: BAX & Bradley 15 ©Wayne Callender RTI What the Research Says About Fluency Fluent Readers: Nonfluent Readers: •Focus their attention on understanding the text •Focus attention on decoding •Synchronize skills of decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension •Alter attention to accessing the meaning of individual words •Read with ease and accuracy •Make frequent word reading errors •Interpret text and make connections between the ideas in the text •Have few cognitive resources left to comprehend Source: Oregon Reading First Research on Reading Comprehension tells us that... Readers who comprehend well are also good decoders decoders. Implications: Teach decoding and word recognition strategies. Time spent reading is highly correlated with comprehension. Assumption: Students have necessary skills to read read. Big Ideas in Beginning Reading, Univ. of Oregon http://reading.uoregon.edu/comp/comp_why.pp 16 ©Wayne Callender RTI Predicting Math Success Three variables Th i bl predict di t math th performance f on the WASL (95 to 100% accuracy): 9 Calculation (grade level calculations) 9 Application (do I multiply or divide?) 9 Reading Fluency (most highly correlated) Steve Hirsh, WSU Spokane CBM Math • Kindergarten and first grade: • • • • Orall Counting O C i Number Identification Quantity Discrimination Missing Number Grades 1 -6: • Computation C t ti Grades 2- 6: • Concepts and Applications © 2009 17 ©Wayne Callender RTI DATA-BASED DECISION-MAKING Using Assessment for Instructional Decisions S Screening i (revisit) ( i it) Diagnostic Progress Monitor Diagnostic Testing... Should there be differences in instruction for children struggling or at-risk at risk for different reasons? “...thus far, no conclusive evidence exists that the particular cause (genetic or environment) of a child’s delay in either of these domains is relevant to the type of instruction he or she will require in learning to read” National Reading Panel Report, based on 115,000 reading research studies 18 ©Wayne Callender RTI How Much Diagnostic Assessment and When • Primary Purpose: Identifying what to teach • Under what circumstances? – All Strategic/Low Benchmark students – Some Intensive students – Key Ke function f nction is to tell uss what hat to teach - not just to know for explanation or curiosity purposes Purpose of Assessment Method of Assessment Screening g ((revisit)) Benchmark Testing g Diagnostic Functional Assessment Progress Monitoring CBM & In-program Testing 19 ©Wayne Callender RTI Yearly Growth and Catch-Up Growth Yearly Goal Benchmark Trend Line Catch Up Catch-Up Growth Yearly Trend Line for Students 2 years Behind June September Two Types of Progress Monitoring: Type of Assessment: Answers: 1) In-Program Assessment Are students learning the content? 2) CBM/DIBELS Are they generalizing? 20 ©Wayne Callender RTI Fall Benchmark 2008 Intensive KT GN PN RV LS LM GW LA JEM Strategic EP JB EP SS MW wL JT HH DC JG LB JM BL Benchmark WP RH DM JC NC TC CC CP JM CM SZ LL BJ CT ©2009 Wayne Callender Pitfalls and Remedies 4. Pitfall: Ineffective Intervention (i.e., remediation di ti and d strategies) t t i ) Remedy: Powerful, Direct and Comprehensive Intervention 21 ©Wayne Callender MB JS EK GC SC GB DL MP TH RW RTI Use a Scientifically Validated Approach • Investigate the research base of your programs and interventions • Identify sources of information for evaluating effectiveness of programs • Know your own context and needs • Match interventions with student needs (benchmark, strategic and intensive) • Monitor M it th the extent t t to t which hi h they th are effective • Change ineffective programs and strategies Intervention is more than a Claim • Lots of programs are using the buzzwords, b t (1) may nott actually but t ll teach t h them, th or (2) be little more than a Core with more practice. • Core programs are NOT designed to meet the needs of ALL students (20 -25% 25% may require a highly structured approach). • Intensive level learners require a highly structured approach 22 ©Wayne Callender RTI Common Core Curriculum Formats that Cause Problems for Struggling Learners • Overly student-directed/generative • Spiral Curricula • Limited consideration of student prior knowledge (required for new learning) p instruction targeting g g important p • Lack of explicit content and/or critical skills • Limited use of scaffolding • Limited instruction for generalization Reasons for Academic Difficulties Characteristics of Struggling Learners: • Memory problems • Poor reading skills • Poor Organization Skills • Language difficulties • Attention Difficulties • Conceptual Understanding ©2009 Wayne Callender 23 ©Wayne Callender RTI Learner Characteristics Academic Characteristics: • Trouble T bl with ith W Writing iti or C Copying i • Poor comprehension skills • Immature counting skills • Lack of understanding of place value g • Weak basic facts knowledge • Procedural steps of computation • Poor concepts of direction and time ©2009 Wayne Callender Intervention Essential instructional features for meeting ti intensive i t i student t d t needs d • • • • • - Highly controlled vocabulary - Highly decodable text - Seeks S k to t minimize i i i confusion f i - Each lesson contains 10% new information - Hear it, see it, say it – “I do, you do, we do” 24 ©Wayne Callender RTI Intervention (Continued) • • • • • • • - Multiple repetitions - Guided/Controlled G id d/C t ll d opportunities t iti ffor practice ti - Constant checks on mastery - Scaffold learning - Corrective and immediate Feedback - Additional modeling modeling, repetitions - 5 MORES when necessary 5 “Mores” 1. 2. 3. 4 4. 5. More explicit/direct teaching More modeling More practice with…. M More feedback f db k More time Source: Jo Robinson 25 ©Wayne Callender RTI Pitfalls and Remedies 5. Pitfall: Ineffective Support Systems Remedy: Evaluate System Effectiveness and Problem-Solve to Achieve “Healthy” Systems Elementary 1 DIBELS Comparison Benchmark %: Strategic %: Intensive %: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 11 18 63 26 11 78 13 9 79 9 12 64 22 14 73 12 15 65 15 19 Median at each Risk Level B = 71% S = 13% I = 14% Mean at each Risk Level 70% 15% 14% 26 ©Wayne Callender RTI Elementary 2 DIBELS Comparison Benchmark %: Strategic %: Intensive %: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 31 49 46 32 22 61 22 17 69 19 12 77 16 7 77 14 9 84 10 6 Median at each Risk Level B = 69% S = 19% I = 12% Mean at each Risk Level 62% 20% 17 % What are Effective Support Systems? • • • • Each Tier of our schoolwide system is effective if it meets the needs of most students who need that level of support. Benchmark Students – Generally Effective core curriculum & instruction: • support 95% of benchmark students to achieve each outcome goals. Strategic Students – Generally Effective supplemental support: • support 80% of strategic students to achieve outcome goals. Intensive Students – Generally Effective interventions: • support 80% of intensive students to achieve the goal or achieve strategic or benchmark status. Source: Roland Good © 2009 27 ©Wayne Callender RTI Evaluate the Health of Systems Effective Systems: Evaluating Grade Level Progress Grade Data Schools: Elem. A School Context Interm. Support K-2 (2005 2006) K (2005 2006) 1 (2005 2006) 2 (2005 2006) 3 (200 552006 ) 72 87 74 53 57 Coach Areas of Greatest Concern Principal Kinder garten First Grad e Secon d Grade Third Grad e I B S I Overall Level of Support/t/ S Target Low ( ) indicates % of adequate progress Winter to Spring Effective Systems: Identifying Concerns Areas of Concern/Actions Schools: Elem. A BSI Progress K-2 (2005 (20052006) K (2005 (20052006) 1 (2005 (20052006) 2 (2005 (20052006) 3 (2005 (20052006) B 89 100 82 96 100 S 64 86 63 25 53 I 58 81 68 21 22 B h Benchmark k G 1: Walk to read? Fluency? St t i Strategic G 2: Phonics for reading? Fluency? Enhancements? I t i Intensive KG & G 3: Program pacing? Other? © 2009 Consider this… Set goals for expected Effectiveness and hold regular Data Meetings to evaluate progress Make Data Meaningful! 28 ©Wayne Callender RTI Adequate Progress for 3rd Grade What is the overall effectiveness of the gradelevel plan? % of students who made adequate progress in each grade 3 (ORF) > 59% Top Quartile 43% to 58% Middle Quartile < 42% Bottom Quartile How effective is the gradelevel instructional support for intensive students? % of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range How effective is the gradelevel instructional support for strategic students? % of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range ↓ ↓ > 34% Top Quartile 15% to 33% Middle Quartile < 14% Bottom Quartile > 28% Top Quartile 10% to 27% Middle Quartile < 9% Bottom Quartile How effective is the gradelevel instructional support for benchmark students? % of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range > 92% Top Quartile 81% to 91% Middle Quartile < 80% Bottom Quartile 56 Source: Oregon Reading First RTI Framework Problem Solving Systems and Individuals What Level of instructional support do students need to be successful? Universal Screening Is the system of instructional support effective for a high percentage of instructional groups/students? Are there students that have not responded to systems level support and require specially designed instruction? Progress Monitoring and Reviewing Outcomes Complete ICEL RIOT Evaluation For Learner Including Acute intervention and progress monitoring plan (step 2) (step 1) (step 3) support system effective? (e.g. 90%+ making adequate progress) support system effective? (e.g. high % of students making adequate progress) support system effective? SPED Eligibility Determination (step 4) YES YES INTENSIVE What support is provided? Are there students that have not demonstrated adequate progress despite extensive intervention that may require long-term supports and individualized instruction? For INTENSTIVE students not making acceptable progress, consider re-grouping student into a more INTENSIVE/supportive group OR Initiate problem-solving (I-Plan), including diagnosing problem, intervention modification, and short term goal setting. Is the INTENSIVE Support For STRATEGIC students not making acceptable progress, consider placing student in INTENSIVE support pp OR Initiate p problem-solving g (I-Plan), ( ), including diagnosing problem, intervention modification, and short term goal setting. . Initiate Systems-level problem solving for strategic system. 1. Identify Who: Groups not making adequate progress. 2. Identify Why: Reasons for inadequate progress. NO STRATEGIC What support is provided? Initiate Systems-level problem solving for strategic system. Complete ICEL/RIOT assessment including Instruction, Curriculum, Environment. 1. Identify Who: Instructional groups not making adequate progress. 2. Identify Why: Reasons for inadequate progress. YES Y Is the STRATEGIC Support For BENCHMARK students not making acceptable progress, consider placing the student in STRATEGIC supports OR initiate problem solving (I-Plan), including diagnosing problem, intervention modification, and short term goal setting. (e.g. high % of students making adequate progress) Initiate Systems-level problem solving for strategic system. 1. Identify Who: Groups not making adequate progress. 2. Identify Why: Reasons for inadequate progress. NO What support is provided? BENCHMARK NO Is the BENCHMARK Support 29 ©Wayne Callender ©2009 Wayne Callender RTI Resources • Partnersforlearning.org • [email protected] • Response-to-Intervention: A Practical Guide for Educators, McGraw-Hill (out this fall) Contact Information: Wayne Callender Training and Consulting [email protected] 30 ©Wayne Callender
© Copyright 2024