RTIData-based Decisions

Marilyn BechtelPsychologist/Elliott Elementary School

Lincoln Public SchoolsJuly 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 Spring Percentile

PSF NWF PSF NWF ORF PSF NWF ORF

10 6 11 2 2 13

1 1 4

20 13 31 4 6 36 1 4 17

30 26 48 9 19 51 10 14 25

40 54 70

32 40 64 38 27 41

PSF = Phoneme Segmentation FluencyNWF = Nonsense Word FluencyORF = Oral Reading Fluency

1st Grade DIBELS LPS Norms

Score Fall Percentile Winter Percentile Spring Percentile

PSF NWF PSF NWF ORF PSF NWF ORF

10 6 11 2 2 13

1 1 4

20 13 31 4 6 36 1 4 17

30 26 48 9 19 51 10 14 25

40 54 70

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:

Winter PSF: 35

Winter NWF: 14

Winter ORF: 8

Intervention focus:

Sound/symbol skills

Student B Percentiles:

Winter PSF: 35

Winter NWF: 35

Winter ORF: 8

Intervention focus:

Sight words and fluency

Correspondence to Classroom Assessments –

First Grade Proficiency3rd quarter report card:

DRA 14-16

40 – 60 cwpm

4th quarter report card:

DRA 18

40 – 60 cwpm

Winter benchmark:

DIBELS graded probes

64th – 73rd percentile

Spring benchmark:

DIBELS graded probes

41st – 54th percentile

Correspondence to Classroom Assessments –

Second Grade Proficiency

3rd quarter report card:

DRA 24

78 – 106 cwpm

4th quarter report card:

DRA 18

94 – 124 cwpm

Winter benchmark:

DIBELS graded probes

32nd – 63rd percentile

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?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3 4

Weeks

Wo

rds

per

min

ute

Student A

Student B

Or this?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3 4

Weeks

Wo

rds

Per

Min

ute

Student A

Student B

LPS Goal Rates

RTI goal• First grade:

PSF 1/week NWF 2/week

• All grades: ORF 2.5/week

Average from NormsFirst grade:

PSF .25/weekNWF 1.09/week

1st grade winter/spring:ORF 1.63/week

2nd grade fall/spring:ORF 1.02/week

What it takes…

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Weeks

Wo

rds

per

Min

ute

Student Gains

Grade Level proficiency

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

9/20/2005 9/27/2005 10/4/2005 10/11/200 10/18/200 10/25/200 11/1/2005 11/8/2005 11/15/200 11/22/200 11/29/200

Sessions

Corre

ct P

er M

inut

e

Baseline Reading Recovery

Goal Line

Grade Level Line

Oral Reading Fluency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Sessions

Corre

ct P

er M

inut

e

Baseline Sonday

Goal Line

Grade Level Line

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Weeks of Intervention

Wo

rds

per

Min

ute

D progress

Goal lines

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Weeks of Intervention

Go

al li

nes

C Progress

Goal lines

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