Teaming/Data/Interventions RtI Infrastructure: Data RtI Partnership Coaches meeting January 6, 2011 Terry Schuster, RtI Partnership Lead Coach

Key Features: 4 Purposes of Assessment Knowing if it’s Scientifically Based Building a Common Data System Importance of Tools, Training, and Support

Integrated Assessment Systems Assessment Instruction Assessment Instruction Assessment FOR Instruction.. Not this

Schools Use Specific Tools for Specific Assessment Purposes TypeFeatureExample Universal Screening Reliable, Valid, Low Cost, Accurate, Production Type Responses, Sensitive to Between Persons Differences CBM Family Members; Common Assessments; ODRs DiagnosticLots of Items, Production-Type Responses Placement Tests; Curriculum Assessments; Can’t Do/Won’t Do; Curriculum-Based Evaluation thought process Progress Monitoring Reliable, Valid, Low Cost, Accurate, Production Type Responses, REPEATABLE, Sensitive to Within Persons Differences CBM Family Members; Common Formative Assessments Program EvaluationLinked to Important Outcomes ISAT; CBM; Common Assessments; GPA; ODRs

Linking Screening and Progress Monitoring Assessment Across Tiers Academic Basic Skills Tier 1: Universal Screening / Benchmarking Tier 2: Strategic Monitoring Tier 3: Frequent Progress Monitoring MaterialGeneralized Curriculum CBM probes Frequency 3 x per year2 x per month1-2 x per week

Common Assessments Definition Rationale Formative / Summative

What Would Be The Consequences of Allocating Services Based on This Triangle? Inefficient Spreads supplemental & intensive resources too thin Makes specialized services less special

Or THIS Triangle? Images and Analyses Courtesy of Ben Ditkowsky, Ph.D. Triangles are About Program Evaluation

Schools Use CBM in Universal Screening Instead of Referral Driven Practices Local – school or district Think box plots or %-ile charts e.g., < 25th Tier 2 Candidates e.g., <10th Individual Problem Solving and/or Tier 3 Candidates

Progress Monitoring Survey Level Assessment – Too often skipped Goal Setting – Should NOT be set in Instructional Level material – Criterion for success should at least begin to close the gap with peers

Set goal & monitor At 4 th or 5 th gr.

Diagnostics It’s not just about one measure... Classroom performance – Observations – Independent work District assessments/ ISAT Curriculum assessments – Pre-tests; Placement tests – Chapter & Unit tests – Curriculum skill/indicator checklists Skill Deficit versus Performance Deficit When Tier 3 & still need more info - CBE It’s not always about one student...

Diagnostic Assessment Needs to connect with instruction; tells teachers what needs to be taught Skills, not scores The process is more important than the “test” –Adequate number of items per skill –Error analysis

What happens when these data systems aren’t in place? Lack of direction for knowing what needs to be improved Don’t know which tier and students need additional support/intervention Don’t know if change efforts have been successful

Key Questions What assessments do you currently use for each purpose in your district/building? Do they each meet the requirements for that purpose? Do you have too many assessments for a particular purpose? Too few? Tools? Training? Support?

Assessment Worksheet TypeAssessments Currently in Place Meets Criteria for Purpose (comments) Action Plan Universal Screening Frequency? Rigby/Fountas & Pinnell Leveling 3x/yr ISEL 2x/yr Gates 3 rd -8 th 1x/yr R-CBM 1 st -5 th 3x/yr EL (all 4) K-1 st 3x/yr Maze 6 th -8 th 3x/yr No Yes No Move to Diagnostic tool – not all students 3x/yr Move to Diagnostic tool – not all students Keep as Universal Screener – firm up US use in target schools - separate US from Program Eval Establish a multi-gate system Either use as true universal screener or drop – consider using R-CBM on bottom 25% Diagnostic/ Intervention Planning WIAT WJ-III DRA IRI’s WADE (Wilson placement test) Horizons placement test Add Rigby/Fountas & Pinnell Leveling, ISEL, and Gates Add regular curriculum assessments – need to decide this at a district, or at least a school level Add assessments for determining Skill vs Performance deficits Add some CBE-type skills Progress Monitoring Frequency? CBM (all types) Tier 2 2x/mo Tier 3 1x/wk Yes Continue to provide coaching support to schools/staff with low compliance on monitoring; Decrease Maze monitoring; Decrease # of students being monitored on more than one CBM measure Program Evaluation ISAT 1x/yr CBM – ISAT correlate triangles 3x/yr Yes Continue Continue, but separate from US decisions

Example R-CBM Ongoing for new staff; annual AIRS; sd/coaching during grade level data mtgs 3x per year R-CBM yes Ongoing for new staff; annual AIRS; sd/coaching during data review mtgs 2x /mo for sts in Tier 2 1x/wk for sts in Tier 3 ‘15 hour’ grade level data mtgs 4-6 wk data review mtgs – all sts being monitored School level percentiles District ISAT cut scores into triangles R-CBM yes 2x per year SIP team &‘15 hour’ grade level data mtgs sd/coaching during SIP & grade level mtgs

Key Features 4 Purposes of Assessment Knowing if it’s Scientifically Based Building a Common Data System Importance of Tools, Training, and Support

Assessment Worksheet TypeAssessments Currently in Place Meets Criteria for Purpose (comments) Action Plan Universal Screening Diagnostic/ Intervention Planning Progress Monitoring Program Evaluation