1. Oregon Response to Intervention Group Intervention Review Meetings: Determining when to make a change and what to change DIBELS Strand

2. Is what WE are doing working?

3. Oregon Response to Intervention Expectations Demonstrate good audience skills –Silence cell phones –Hold side conversations out of ear shot of others –Engage in active listening Participate in discussions Ask questions during work time If you need a break, take one

4. Oregon Response to Intervention Session Purposes The participant will be able to: AWARENESS of the structured process used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING of the creation and use of decision rules to place, intensify, and exit students from interventions SKILL DEVELOPMENT in analyzing a sample case of an intervention group Anita Archer

5. Oregon Response to Intervention Session Outcomes Be affirmed for your good practices. Be reminded of things you used to do but forgot about. See things that you already do, now use and can expand on. See things that are new and you would like to try.

6. Oregon Response to Intervention Partnerships Pick someone near you to be your partner. The person with the next birthday is bacon. The other person is eggs. Call back routine.

7. How’s your herd?

8. Oregon Response to Intervention Strong core instruction

9. Oregon Response to Intervention Despite our strong efforts...

10. Oregon Response to Intervention Group Intervention meetings help decide if the cows are fed the right food

11. Start with the Why Why How What Simon Sinek

12. Oregon Response to Intervention Purpose To determine which students are in need of interventions, decide what intervention best fits each student’s needs, coordinate the students’ reading program, determine the effectiveness of current interventions, and make decisions about whether to continue, discontinue, or change an intervention.

14. Oregon Response to Intervention CVCe Silent “e” Bossy “e” Super “e” Ninja “e”

15. Oregon Response to Intervention Interventions are one part of the system that helps a student be successful. The adults must coordinate and be explicit with the students how the parts of instructional day are connected. Is what WE are doing working?

16. Oregon Response to Intervention Review the purpose of the intervention review process. How does/can your team work together to coordinate the students’ program? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

17. Start with the Why Why How What Simon Sinek

18. Intervention Review Process Meetings must be structured to determine- Is what WE are doing working?

19. Oregon Response to Intervention Teaming is hard!! Having strong and effective teams is the MOST DIFFICULT thing to pull together! –Who meets? –How do we organize meetings? –When do we meet? –Who completes the paperwork? –How do we communicate decisions? –How do we assess our systems?

20. Oregon Response to Intervention Who sits at the table? Principal Literacy Guru/Title I Grade level team Special Education teacher May also include –E–ELL teacher –S–School Psychologist –T–Teacher representatives from other grade levels –P–Paraprofessionals

21. Oregon Response to Intervention A solid agenda will...... guide your team’s decision making... keep you focused on decision rules... keep you solution focused... help to avoid storytelling

22. Oregon Response to Intervention Guiding Question

23. Oregon Response to Intervention Sample Agenda

24. Oregon Response to Intervention When Do We Meet?

25. Oregon Response to Intervention Who completes the paperwork?

26. Oregon Response to Intervention Notifying Parents

27. Oregon Response to Intervention Note taking

28. Oregon Response to Intervention Tracking Attendance

29. Oregon Response to Intervention System Check

30. Oregon Response to Intervention Which components of a tracking and communication system do you believe are most essential? What do you believe is the next piece of the tracking and communication system that your school should work on? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

31. Start with the Why Why How What Simon Sinek

32. Oregon Response to Intervention Intervention Review Process Have a clear set of decision rules to determine- Is what we are doing working?

34. Oregon Response to Intervention Purposes of Data Based Decision Making Is what WE are doing working? Adjustments to Instructional Design –Time –Design –Delivery Optimize System Variables –Standardization –Efficiency –Effectiveness

35. Oregon Response to Intervention Decision Rules Pause Analyze Respond

36. Oregon Response to Intervention Decision Rules Decision rules guide how we decide if what WE are doing is working Your decision rules create consistency across grade levels and schools Determine how to intensify and individualize interventions Standardizes process for eligibility decision making

37. Oregon Response to Intervention Key features of decision rules Set the grade levels for the decision rules (K, 1-6) Number of points below the aimline Give direction if the data is highly variable –Trendline analysis Duration of intervention /frequency of monitoring (Length of time in between meetings (6 to 8 weeks) Define success

38. Oregon Response to Intervention Example from TTSD Change interventions when: Progress monitoring indicates 4 consecutive data points below the aimline. If data are highly variable (points are above and below the aimline), maintain the current intervention until 6 data points have been collected, analyze aimline and trendline.. Change intervention if the slope is flat or decreasing and the scores are below benchmark. Each time the intervention is changed the aimline should be redrawn using the median of the three data points prior to the intervention change as the starting point for the new aimline. For ELL Students, check the progress of the cohort group after each 8-week period to determine whether an individual student’s progress is significantly different from the group.

39. Oregon Response to Intervention Example from Roseburg (Cont.) Change and intensify interventions when: Progress monitoring indicates 4 consecutive data points below the aimline. If data are highly variable, (points above and below the aimline), maintain the current intervention until 6 data points have been collected. Analyze aimline and trendline. Change intervention if the slope is flat or decreasing and the scores are below benchmark.

40. Oregon Response to Intervention Example from Roseburg Change and intensify interventions when: Each time the intervention is changed, the aimline should be re-drawn using the median of the three data points prior to the intervention change as the starting point for the new aimline. For ELL students, check the progress of the cohort group after each 6-week period to determine whether an individual student’s progress is significantly different from the group.

41. Oregon Response to Intervention Pause When a student has “X” number of points below the aimline we must pause and think... 10 20 30 40 Dec. Scores Feb. Scores Jan. Scores March Scores April Scores May Scores June Scores 60 50 Aimline Chase

42. Oregon Response to Intervention RTI = TIR TIR = Thinking Is Required Decision rules are “trip wires” that tell us when to pause, analyze, respond as needed based on the best thinking of the group.

43. Oregon Response to Intervention What are the key features of decision rules? How do the examples help you to understand decision rules? How would using these decision rules change the discussions at your meetings? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

44. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze 1.Analyze group progress monitoring data 2.Analyze individual progress monitoring data 3.Analyze complementary data

45. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze Data Once the decision rule has triggered a pause, we analyze progress monitoring data

46. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze Group Data Analyze: Is it an individual or a cohort problem?

47. Oregon Response to Intervention Cohort Data Cohort Group Analysis: Students who have similar literacy programming: –Grade level –Intervention program –Time –ELD level

48. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze Cohort Data Analyze Cohort Data 48 Amy Chase Mary Isaiah

49. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze Cohort Data Analyze Cohort Data 49 Amy Mary Isaiah Chase

50. Oregon Response to Intervention CWPM (goal 100) 47 50 39 55 57 53 Accuracy (goal 95%) 72% 73% 90% 80% 82% 95% Analyze Individual Data

51. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze Data Once the decision rule has triggered a pause, we analyze progress monitoring data

52. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze Data Once the decision rule has triggered a pause, we analyze progress monitoring data and... –Intervention data, e.g. weekly checkouts –OAKS –Weekly core reading assessments –Unit/Theme core reading assessments –Systematic anecdotal notes –Diagnostic assessment –Other CBM

53. Oregon Response to Intervention Explain the use progress monitoring data (cohort groups and individual students) in how we analyze students’ needs. What complementary data do you see as important for your team? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

54. Oregon Response to Intervention Respond Gather additional diagnostic data if necessary Focus on instructional variables that you can control Exit students as appropriate

55. Oregon Response to Intervention Additional Diagnostic Assessment Look to your Assessment Protocol Assessments to consider –Intervention Placement Test –Phonics Screener –CORE Assessments –DRA –QRI

56. Oregon Response to Intervention Variables Related to Student Achievement Desire to learn Strategies for learning Knowledge Skills Prior content knowledge Self-efficacy/helplessness Race Genetic potential Gender Birth Order Disposition Physical difference IQ Disability category Personal history Quality of instruction Pedagogical knowledge Content knowledge Quality of curriculum Quality of learning environment Quality of evaluation Quality and quantity of time/content Family income and resources Family housing Parent years of schooling Mobility Members of family Family values Socioeconomic status Family history Alterable Unalterable (hard to change) Within the studentExternal to the student

57. Oregon Response to Intervention Alterable Variables Chart 57 http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downloads/Alt_Var_Chart_2.pdf Intensity Time Group Size Different program Fidelity Time/ Engagement

58. What do we change? Time Group Size Different Program Individual Problem- Solving Time/ Engagement

59. A change of intervention does not necessarily mean a change of intervention program. It means a change in intensity matched to need.

60. Oregon Response to Intervention The goal of RTI is to give interventions until they can make it on their own without additional support “Lifers” not making progress in interventions is problematic Shift in thinking from Title 1 model Should I Stay or Should I Go?

61. Example from TTSD Consider Exiting students from interventions when: The student has met the DIBELS grade level goal at the next benchmark three times consecutively. Core reading assessments and intervention assessments indicate grade-level proficiency. Student has met the benchmark goal on OAKS (for students in grades 3 to 5).

62. Oregon Response to Intervention Explain the alterable variables chart and how it correlates to the changes in intervention document. Why do you believe it is difficult to move students out of interventions? How would decision rules help? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

63. Example: 3 rd Grade (Fall) Group 1: Accurate & Fluent ≥ 95%, ≥ 70 Words Correct/Minute Group 2: Accurate but Slow ≥ 95%, ≤ 70 Words Correct/Minute StudentAccurac y FluencyStudentAccuracyFluency Kelly95%58 Maria96%50 Jose95%55 Alexis95%60 Group 3: Inaccurate & Slow ≤ 95%, ≤ 70 Words Correct/Minute Group 4: Inaccurate & High Rate ≤ 95%, ≥ 70 Words Correct/Minute StudentAccurac y FluencyStudentAccuracyFluency George 59%13 Jay89%70 Sam 67%16 Marco92%86 Holly 86%31 Mary 91%28 Luis 94%58 Frank 94%15 Alex 93%64 Alicia94%62 Ronny 93%42 Phonics Group 1 (Intensive) – George, Sam, Holly, Mary Phonics Group 2 – Luis, Frank, Alex, Alicia, Ronny

64. Oregon Response to Intervention Phonics for Reading HM Interventions Reading Mastery Read Naturally

65. Oregon Response to Intervention Look to the decision rules Progress monitoring indicates 4 consecutive data points below the aimline. Reading Mastery Group

67. Oregon Response to Intervention Review the decision rules for this exercise. What do you notice about the group data? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

68. Oregon Response to Intervention Group Data Individual Data Complementary Data Reading Mastery Group

69. 2 points above aimline All students had a low score on the December assessment 4 points below aimline

70. Sam 67 63 72 74 80 59 63 72 66 Look deeper at Benchmark data

71. Winter Benchmark Errors Complementary Data Total Words Errors CWPM Accuracy 2.173215272% 2.260155575% 2.381265567%

72. Oregon Response to Intervention Core Program Assessments Voc Read Comp Const Resp Voc Read Comp Const Resp Voc Read Comp Const Resp Voc Read Comp Const Resp Voc Read Comp Const Resp total correct Percent Poss322322322322322 35#/35 = % Sam 3102122103212002257% SkillMake InferencesPlot and SettingCause and EffectMake InferencesSequence Reading Mastery Assessments Complementary Data Lesson 20Lesson 40Lesson 60Lesson 80 8/1512/1511/1513/15 Retest 14/15Retest 13/15

73. Oregon Response to Intervention Quick Phonics Screener (QPS) Complementary Data

75. Oregon Response to Intervention Group #1: Phonics George (59%-85%) Holly (86%-95%) Sam (67%-72%) Mary (67%-87%) Continue the group It is working well for George, Holly and Mary P.M. in CWPM Intensify for Sam Small Group during core on word attack skills based on QPS using cuing system from RM Keep Sam for 15 minutes after the group leaves and reteach Word Attack section of Reading Mastery Reading Mastery Group

76. Oregon Response to Intervention Review the steps in the placement and decisions in this intervention review process What additional questions or pieces of information do you wish you had? How would collect that information? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

77. Oregon Response to Intervention

78. X = accuracy. = CWPM

79. Oregon Response to Intervention With your decision rules in mind, what strikes you about this group’s data? How does seeing both accuracy and correct words per minute help you understand the students needs? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

80. Oregon Response to Intervention Group Data Individual Data Complementary Data Phonics for Reading Group

82. Complementary Data Voc Read Comp Const Resp Voc Re Comp Const Resp Voc Read Comp Const Resp Voc Read Comp Const Resp Voc Read Comp Const Resp total correct Percent Poss322322322322322 35#/35 = % Jay AB2122213222212279% Ronny 3212122223203122880% Marco 3113223212213122983% Luis 3012122222122222674% Frank 0100102223101111543% Alex 302AB 211 1011152% Skill Make InferencesPlot and SettingCause and EffectMake InferencesSequence JayRonnyMarcoLuisFrankAlex score 212224220215205210 Pass MMMMNM Percentile 35th57th67th49th17th27th OAKS Passing = 211

83. Oregon Response to Intervention Analyze the student progress. What do you notice about the group and the individuals? Thinking of the role of complementary data: What else do you wish you had? Who would collect this assessment? How would it be weighed against the other assessments? Talk time With extra time please switch questions

84. Oregon Response to Intervention Phonics for Reading Group

85. Oregon Response to Intervention Phonics for Reading Group

86. Oregon Response to Intervention What decisions would you make for this group? Talk time With extra time please come to an agreement and check with another pair