Outline of Day 2 Review of Day 1 Content MTSS, Tier II & III Systems, 5 Questions, Thinking About and Planning for Step 0 Problem-Solving Rubric (Teams, Data, Expectations) Responding to At-Risk Students Finding Common Needs Problem-Solving Steps Case Study: Kennewick Study Action Research/Self-Sustaining Study End of the Day Planning

MTSS Tier II & III: Day 2 Know Understand Do Step 0 How to design a system that proactively responds to teaching and learning Review and Update Action Plan Problem-Solving Steps Impact of Kennewick study on intervention design and closing achievement gaps Use data on at-risk kids to group by common needs and develop an intervention/action plan DuFour’s 4+ 1 Driving Questions and how they align with individual student problem-solving How hypotheses/prediction statement are layered and connected to intervention designs to leverage student achievement Prioritize Your Work: Who, What, When, and How to intervene with at-risk students Components of an effective intervention plan How to design an integrated and proactive/preventative system through using data to identify at-risk students Develop a plan to share training information with school-based staff members (as appropriate) The difference between Annual Growth versus Catch-Up Growth Importance of increased instructional time for annual growth plus catch-up growth Plan for Semester 2 Action Research/Self-Sustaining Study

TIER II & III Within An Integrated Tiers of Support Designing Individualized, Intensive Instruction TIER II & III Within An Integrated Tiers of Support

Integrated Tiers (con’t) Interventions are designed to be coordinated with core curriculum Organizes educational resources efficiently and effectively Promotes prevention, early identification, early intervention

Integrated Tiers (con’t) Student performance needs to drive movement between tiers—up and down Endorse research-based instruction/intervention Successful implementation relies on highly effective teachers and related services personnel Intensified instruction/intervention is provided to students in direct proportion to their individual needs via Tier II and Tier III

Kennewick study: Annual Growth for All Students, Catch-up Growth for Those Who are Behind Lynn Fielding, Nancy Kerr, Paul Rosier—2007 ISBN: 978-0-9666875-2-1 How a school district in Washington met their goal of 90 percent of third graders reading at or above grade level. Their goal was to do this in three years—it actually took them 11 years, but they did it!

Annual Growth (Tier 1) All students Year’s worth of progress for each year of instruction in core subject Relies on excellent initial teaching Perpetuates the four-to-six year range of incoming Kindergarten achievement (Fielding, Kerr & Rosier, 2007) Students who stay behind remain behind….

Catch-up Growth (Tier II/Tier III) Students who are behind need catch-up growth Catch-up growth is annual growth PLUS some Easiest to make EARLY Primary driver of catch-up growth is increased instructional time (Fielding, Kerr & Rosier, 2007)

In most cases… When students start school behind, they stay behind Current remedial programs do not catch up lagging students Annual growth occurs, but very little catch-up growth occurs (Fielding, Kerr & Rosier, 2007)

Table Talk What is your school’s approach to assuring that students make annual growth? What is your school’s approach to assuring that students make catch-up growth?

Increased Instructional Time Students who are 3 years behind need more minutes than those who are 1 year behind. Catch-up growth typically achieved by “running longer” and “running smarter”, not “running faster.” Direct instructional time does not include practice time, SSR, spelling, etc. (Fielding et al., 2007)

Assumption: With normal instructional time (reading block, e. g Assumption: With normal instructional time (reading block, e.g.), Tony should make one year’s growth/annual growth. Goal

Assumption: With normal instructional time (reading block, e. g Assumption: With normal instructional time (reading block, e.g.), Tony should make one year’s growth/annual growth. Goal Bad news: Without catch-up time, Tony will still be at the 12th percentile at the end of third grade.

Assumption: With normal instructional time (reading block, e. g Assumption: With normal instructional time (reading block, e.g.), Tony should make one year’s growth/annual growth. Goal … and fourth grade.

Kennewick study: The schools tried more time. It worked. They kept doing it. They saw direct correlation between increased instructional time and reading growth. Improved reading skills positively impacted math scores.

TIER III INTERVENTION DESIGN Designing Individualized, Intensive Instruction TIER III INTERVENTION DESIGN

Think-Write-Pair-Share: Intervention Design Think about a time that you were involved with action/intervention planning. What were some key essential components on the intervention/action plan? What factors increased or decreased the likelihood of implementation?

Action Planning: Key Components Specificity Passing the stranger test Focus on alterable actions that we control Building a support plan/progress monitoring plan Making a RtI decision Setting a criteria for success Evaluation of Implementation & Outcomes Logical links

Principles of Intervention Design Intervention is… Planful- procedures to be applied are specified clearly and completely Environmentally Focused- actions taken modify the environment not the student Goal Directed- the team writes an ambitious, yet attainable goal statement prior to intervention design Intervention is planful. Through careful thought Problem Solving teams make decisions about what/how to teach. The result should be procedures that are specific and clear. Interventions should be environmentally focused in other words, don’t focus on modifying the individual! Consider dynamics of intervention; it is not only what you teach that makes the difference. Often it is considering the intensity: group size, time frame, frequency of monitoring. An intervention should be goal directed—don’t intervene without a goal that encompasses a targeted behavior, conditions and criteria for success. This goal should be developed prior to intervention implementation. 20

PLC Problem-Solving Rubric: Action Plan

Tier 3 Progress Monitoring Build on existing Tier 2 concepts and structures Increased frequency of PM? New PM? Coordinate multiple assessments across tiers Screening Progress Monitoring Diagnostic Outcomes Mastery measurement or General Outcome Measurement? Might require an intra-individual approach. Like the answer to many questions in RtI, it depends on your purpose and focus of interventions in determining appropriate procedures and tools for progress monitoring. In general, the data collected at Tier 3 depends on the structures available to collect any kind of data at either any time, or at the same time consistently (e.g., Every other Wednesday of the week). What led to the student being selected for Tier 3 interventions? The answer to that question will lead to a decision about progress monitoring selection. Is the student working on a very narrow and specific skill, then mastery measurement may be more appropriate. Are you monitoring for improvements at tier 2 in which the focus of Tier 3 is to increase performance in Tier 2? In general, we’ve talked about the match between the student’s instructional focus and the frequency of progress monitoring. Some of the assessments at our fingertips are General Outcome Measures and the target skills they focus on may not require more frequent assessment for instructional planning. 22

Importance of fidelity Rapid and widespread deployment of RtI has made urgent the need to attend to fidelity Fidelity data are essential to making valid conclusions about outcomes Issues related to fidelity are central to the success of RtI (Sanetti and Kratochwill, 2009)

Types of fidelity assessment Direct observation Behavior rating scales Self-report Permanent products 24

Tier 3 Fidelity Group Activity What fidelity measures are currently in place at your school to assess Tier 3 interventions? What changes need to occur so that fidelity of Tier 3 intervention is being adequately assessed and documented?

Ongoing Decision Making Evidence based intervention linked to verified hypothesis is planned Evidence based intervention is implemented Student Outcomes (SO) Assessed Treatment fidelity (TI) Assessed Continue Intervention (Click1) Evidence based interventions are designed based on verified hypotheses about why the student is struggling. Evidence based interventions are implemented. Data are collected on the student and data are collected on the process of giving the intervention. Both of these data are then used to make a decision. There are three general types of decisions we can plan ahead for:…. (Click2) +SO and +TI – Continue Intervention (Click3) – SO and –TI – Re-implement with fidelity (Click4) – SO and +TI – Modify or change the intervention. (Click5) ….(this just removes all the boxes except the three decision options) (Click 6) Of these three decision options…the first two are straight forward for the most part. (Click) But making plans for how to modify or change the intervention is not so straight forward. +SO +TI Implement strategies to promote treatment fidelity Data-based Decisions -SO -TI Modify/change Intervention -SO +TI From Lisa Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008 NASP Convention 27

Action Plan

Action Planning Things to remember: Document plan Develop action plan linked to verified hypotheses/prediction statements Identify needed supports and develop support plan Modify plan as necessary

Evaluating a Student’s RtI DECISION MAKING

Ongoing Decision Making Evidence based intervention linked to verified hypothesis is planned Evidence based intervention is implemented Student Outcomes (SO) Assessed Treatment fidelity (TI) Assessed Continue Intervention (Click1) Evidence based interventions are designed based on verified hypotheses about why the student is struggling. Evidence based interventions are implemented. Data are collected on the student and data are collected on the process of giving the intervention. Both of these data are then used to make a decision. There are three general types of decisions we can plan ahead for:…. (Click2) +SO and +TI – Continue Intervention (Click3) – SO and –TI – Re-implement with fidelity (Click4) – SO and +TI – Modify or change the intervention. (Click5) ….(this just removes all the boxes except the three decision options) (Click 6) Of these three decision options…the first two are straight forward for the most part. (Click) But making plans for how to modify or change the intervention is not so straight forward. +SO +TI Implement strategies to promote treatment fidelity Data-based Decisions -SO -TI Modify/change Intervention -SO +TI From Lisa Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008 NASP Convention 31

Decisions What to do if RtI is: Positive Continue intervention with current goal Continue intervention with goal increased Fade intervention to determine if student(s) have acquired functional independence. 32

Decisions What to do if RtI is: Questionable Was intervention implemented as intended? If no – employ strategies to increase implementation fidelity 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. 33

Decisions What to do if RtI is: Poor Was intervention implemented as intended? If no – employ strategies in increase implementation fidelity If yes - Is intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis or are there other aligned interventions to consider? (Intervention Design) Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis) Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification) 34

10 minutes of repeated readings 4-5x per day was the implemented intervention. The progress monitoring tool was grade-level DIBELS oral reading fluency. However, in the absence of DIBELS, another one-minute reading, WCPM measure or the ORF OPM would yield similar data. Courtesy of San Antonio Elem., Pasco County School District 35