RTI
Data-based Decisions
Marilyn Bechtel
Psychologist/Elliott Elementary School
Lincoln Public Schools
July 30, 2007
LPS RTI Implementation
• Reading fluency K-2
• Voluntary pilot schools – with principals’
approval
• 5 of 6 pilot schools had Title 1 services
• Central office leader is director of special
education (now)
• Coordination through psychologists
Data-based decisions:
• Local norming
• Intervention planning
• Goal-setting
• Verification determination
Local Norms
• Establish local validity of DIBELS probes
• Determine local average rate of gain
• Provide local comparison with classroom
assessments
– DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment)
– LRP (Leveled Reading Passages)
– Report card rubrics
Local Norms
• DIBELS – Dynamic Indicators of Early
Literacy Skills: www.dibels.uoregon.edu
• Random sample 250 students/grade
• K-2 first year, then 3-5, then 6
• Included all students in sample
• Established replacement protocol for
students who moved
• Sampled 3 times/year during one-week
window
1st Grade DIBELS LPS Norms
Score
Fall Percentile
Winter Percentile
PSF
NWF
PSF NWF ORF
10
6
11
2
2
20
13
31
4
30
26
48
40
54
70
Spring Percentile
PSF
NWF
ORF
13
1
1
4
6
36
1
4
17
9
19
51
10
14
25
32
40
64
38
27
41
PSF = Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
NWF = Nonsense Word Fluency
ORF = Oral Reading Fluency
1st Grade DIBELS LPS Norms
Score
Fall Percentile
Winter Percentile
PSF
NWF
PSF NWF ORF
10
6
11
2
2
20
13
31
4
30
26
48
40
54
70
Spring Percentile
PSF
NWF
ORF
13
1
1
4
6
36
1
4
17
9
19
51
10
14
25
32
40
64
38
27
41
First Grade Average Growth
• Fall to Winter
– PSF = .58 phoneme/week
– NWF = 1.20 grapheme/week
• Winter to Spring
– PSF = .14
– NWF = .05
– ORF = 1.63 word/week
• Fall to Spring
– PSF = .25
– NWF = 1.09
Intervention Planning
Student A Percentiles:
Student B Percentiles:
Winter PSF: 35
Winter NWF: 14
Winter ORF: 8
Intervention focus:
Sound/symbol skills
Winter PSF: 35
Winter NWF: 35
Winter ORF: 8
Intervention focus:
Sight words and
fluency
Correspondence to Classroom
Assessments –
First Grade Proficiency
3rd quarter report card:
DRA 14-16
40 – 60 cwpm
Winter benchmark:
DIBELS graded probes
64th – 73rd percentile
4th quarter report card:
DRA 18
40 – 60 cwpm
Spring benchmark:
DIBELS graded probes
41st – 54th percentile
Correspondence to Classroom
Assessments –
Second Grade Proficiency
3rd quarter report card:
DRA 24
78 – 106 cwpm
Winter benchmark:
DIBELS graded probes
32nd – 63rd percentile
4th quarter report card:
DRA 18
94 – 124 cwpm
Spring benchmark:
DIBELS graded probes
35th – 76th percentile
So…who should receive RTI
interventions?
General guideline adopted by LPS: Consider
those students at and below 20th percentile.
Example: a second grader who reads at or below
37 cwpm in the fall.
Report card rubric: 53 – 82 cwpm at DRA 20 is
proficient at first quarter.
<40 cwpm at DRA 16 is “significantly below grade
level”.
Things to consider:
• If resources are scarce, may limit
interventions by grade (K-2) or other
criteria.
• As resources grow, number of students in
interventions may go up…criteria may
change.
• Resources can grow.
• Spaghetti rule doesn’t apply.
Resource Continuum
Individual Plans----------------Manualized Programs
RTI Toolkit
Sonday
Flashcards
Sound Partners
Fluency practice
Early Success
Peer tutoring*
Reading Mastery
Goal setting
• What do we want?
This?
20
18
16
Words per minute
14
12
Student A
10
Student B
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
Weeks
4
Or this?
20
18
16
Words Per Minute
14
12
Student A
10
Student B
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
Weeks
4
LPS Goal Rates
RTI goal
• First grade:
PSF 1/week
NWF 2/week
Average from Norms
First grade:
PSF
.25/week
NWF
1.09/week
• All grades:
ORF 2.5/week
1st grade winter/spring:
ORF
1.63/week
2nd grade fall/spring:
ORF
1.02/week
What it takes…
90
80
70
Words per Minute
60
50
Student Gains
Grade Level proficiency
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Weeks
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Individual student profile
• Individual Baseline – can be benchmark
only if within 1 week
• Administer 3 probes. Use median score
as baseline.
• Apply goal criteria to graph goal line.
• Monitor weekly with one probe.
• Can do manually or by using Excel,
Chartdog on www.InterventionCentral.org.
Nonsense Word Fluency
Grade Level Line
60
55
Baseline
Reading Recovery
Correct Per Minute
50
45
40
35
30
Goal Line
25
20
15
10
5
0
9/ 20/ 2005
9/ 27/ 2005
10/ 4/ 2005
10/ 11/ 200
10/ 18/ 200
10/ 25/ 200
Sessions
11/ 1/ 2005
11/ 8/ 2005
11/ 15/ 200
11/ 22/ 200
11/ 29/ 200
Sessions
12/
21
12/
14
00
5
05
/20
0
5
/2 0
05
12/
7/2
11/
30
/ 20
05
00
5
11/
23
/2 0
11/
16 /
2
05
Baseline
11/
9/2
0
30
25
9 /2
8 /2
00
5
10/
5/2
00
5
10/
12 /
20
05
10/
19 /
20
05
10/
26
/20
05
11/
2/2
00
5
60
55
50
00
5
00
5
Correct Per Minute
70
65
9 /2
1/2
9 /1
4/2
Oral Reading Fluency
Sonday
Grade Level Line
45
40
35
Goal Line
20
15
10
5
0
Verification Determination
• RTI method requires a dual discrepancy
model for determining need.
– Progress compared to self (meeting goal?)
• Students who complete at least two 8-week
interventions and do not meet goals
– Progress compared to peers
• Students who are at or below 12th percentile
Dual discrepancy
• Students who do not make adequate
progress may:
– Be considered for another intervention
– Continue the intervention with or without
modifications
– Be considered for additional special services,
including special education verification as a
student with a learning disability in the area of
reading fluency or basic reading skills
Case Example:
• Second grade student this year
• First grade: Reading Recovery*,
computer-assisted learning program,
volunteers who did individualized,
integrated reading. *only RTI intervention
• Sonday this year for 15 weeks (small group),
then Sound Partners (individual) for 12 weeks.
D RTI Graph
40
35
Words per Minute
30
25
D progress
20
Goal lines
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Weeks of Intervention
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ELL Student Example:
• Enrolled in February from out of state with SLI
verification: artic. and language goals
• Evaluated in first grade. Did not meet guidelines
in any area.
– UNIT SS = 108
– BVAT = 75
– CELF/Spanish = 90
• Teacher very concerned about reading, DRA 3
(kindergarten level at end of first grade).
• Received services from SLP for rest of first
grade.
ELL Example cont’d
In second grade:
Sonday from ELL teacher for 15 weeks.
Sound Partners from 3 interventionists for
15 weeks.
Extra practice in fluency and sight words
from another ELL teacher (not considered
separate RTI intervention).
C RTI Graph
35
30
Goal lines
25
20
C Progress
Goal lines
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Weeks of Intervention
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Verification decision
• Both these students were verified
SLD/reading at the end of the year
• LPS’ RTI protocol was followed in addition
to data management:
– Parent permission at start of last intervention
– Procedural checklist (available from website)
– Integrity checks
RTI data pluses:
• Ongoing intervention system for students who
need it…no need to fail over and over
• Data from multiple sources that is timely,
relevant to local population, sensitive to small
changes, easy to interpret, correlates to
classroom and other assessments
• Parent and staff friendly
• Helps buildings/districts identify and strengthen
need areas
Future plans
• Behavior – pilot this fall
• Math – small pilot in progress
• Writing – norming in progress, small pilot
programs this year
• Reading comprehension – pilot in
progress in elementary and middle
schools…will help with norming issues
• ELL data analysis
Descargar

RTI: LPS - University of Nebraska–Lincoln