Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dat
a A
naly
sis f
or In
stru
ctio
nal D
ecis
ion
Mak
ing:
Tea
m P
roce
ss
Pa
rt I.
Initi
al/F
all G
oal S
ettin
g an
d In
stru
ctio
nal P
lann
ing
Sess
ion
Bef
ore
the
data
team
mee
ting:
•
Dat
a se
ts/p
acke
ts a
re p
repa
red
for m
eetin
g in
teac
her-
frie
ndly
form
at w
ith a
nd w
ithou
t stu
dent
nam
es (e
.g.,
4Sig
ht P
rofic
ienc
y gr
aph,
DIB
ELS
hist
ogra
m, P
VA
AS)
. •
Dat
a ar
e pr
ovid
ed to
the
team
(tea
cher
s and
oth
er sc
hool
per
sonn
el) i
n ad
vanc
e.
• Se
ssio
n fa
cilit
ator
(per
man
ent)
is id
entif
ied
by th
e pr
inci
pal/d
esig
nee,
and
is tr
aine
d in
team
faci
litat
ion.
•
Mee
ting
logi
stic
s, in
clud
ing
the
date
/tim
e, p
lace
, and
an
agen
da, a
re a
rran
ged
by p
rinci
pal o
r des
igne
e.
Tie
r 1
Pr
oced
ure
T
ypic
al P
rom
pts
Rec
ord
Kee
ping
D
urin
g th
e m
eetin
g:
Team
use
s dis
trict
-pro
vide
d da
ta se
ts.
Team
is p
rovi
ded
with
dat
a to
be
anal
yzed
.
Dat
a se
ts in
que
stio
n (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS
hist
ogra
m, 4
Sigh
t Pr
ofic
ienc
y gr
aph,
PV
AA
S gr
ade
leve
l re
port)
. Use
form
ats
with
out s
tude
nt n
ames
. Te
am id
entif
ies c
urre
nt p
erfo
rman
ce o
f gra
de-le
vel c
adre
(par
ticul
ar
to sc
hool
) on
rele
vant
ben
chm
ark
for g
rade
and
tim
e of
yea
r. N
ote
if gr
ade
leve
l and
indi
vidu
al st
uden
ts m
ade
subs
tant
ial g
row
th (a
t lea
st a
ye
ar)
• D
IBEL
S or
oth
er O
RF
mea
sure
(% a
t ben
chm
ark
[low
risk
], %
st
rate
gic
[som
e ris
k], %
inte
nsiv
e [h
igh
risk]
) 4S
ight
, % A
dvan
ced
+ Pr
ofic
ient
, % B
asic
, % B
elow
Bas
ic
Faci
litat
or: “
Let’s
ana
lyze
how
our
st
uden
ts a
re d
oing
on
(ben
chm
ark
skill
).”
Sum
mar
ize
salie
nt
data
on
the
Scre
enin
g an
d In
terv
entio
n R
ecor
d Fo
rm (S
IRF)
.
Team
sets
a m
easu
rabl
e go
al o
r goa
ls to
ach
ieve
by
the
next
revi
ew
poin
t. •
Goa
l sho
uld
be st
ated
in te
rms o
f % o
f stu
dent
s mak
ing
x (g
ive
a nu
mbe
r) p
rogr
ess t
owar
d id
entif
ied
benc
hmar
k.
• Ex
ampl
e: “
By
----
-, --
---%
of s
tude
nts w
ill a
ttain
the
benc
hmar
k
of --
----
or a
bove
.”
• Fo
r 4Si
ght,
% o
f stu
dent
s sco
ring
Adv
ance
d or
Pro
ficie
nt
“Wha
t goa
l(s) s
hall
we
aim
for b
y ou
r nex
t rev
iew
poi
nt?”
R
ecor
d m
easu
rabl
e go
al(s
) in
corr
ect
form
at o
n SI
RF.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
2
• 4S
ight
exa
mpl
e: “
By
----
, ---
-% o
f stu
dent
s will
ach
ieve
scor
es o
f Pr
ofic
ient
or a
bove
.”
Team
s may
gen
erat
e go
al fo
r bot
h O
RF
and
4Sig
ht P
rofic
ienc
y.
For 4
Sigh
t, te
am n
eeds
to th
en re
view
eith
er It
em A
naly
sis t
o id
entif
y sp
ecifi
c sk
ills t
hat l
arge
num
bers
of s
tude
nts m
isse
d O
R S
ubsc
ale
Ave
rage
s, w
hich
pro
vide
ver
y br
oad
info
rmat
ion
abou
t gro
up
stre
ngth
s/ne
eds.
This
will
hel
p to
iden
tify
skill
s to
addr
ess.
Te
am se
lect
s ins
truct
iona
l stra
tegi
es th
at d
irect
ly a
ddre
ss th
e be
nchm
ark
and
may
sele
ct st
rate
gy to
add
ress
OR
F an
d ta
rget
are
as
from
4Si
ght.
“Let
’s li
st so
me
effe
ctiv
e st
rate
gies
th
at w
ill a
ssis
t our
stud
ents
to m
eet
our g
oal(s
).”
Use
new
sprin
t to
reco
rd id
eas.
Team
ana
lyze
s sug
gest
ed in
stru
ctio
nal s
trate
gies
acc
ordi
ng to
the
follo
win
g fil
ters
: •
Stra
tegy
shou
ld b
e ev
iden
ce b
ased
. •
Stra
tegy
shou
ld b
e pr
actic
al.
• C
urric
ular
mat
eria
ls sh
ould
be
avai
labl
e to
impl
emen
t stra
tegy
or
can
be re
adily
cre
ated
.
“Let
’s ra
te th
ese
idea
s.
• W
hich
one
s hav
e a
good
re
sear
ch b
ase?
•
Of t
hose
, whi
ch o
nes a
re m
ost
prac
tical
?
• W
hat m
ater
ials
do
we
have
av
aila
ble?
•
Wha
t mat
eria
ls d
o w
e ne
ed?”
Ann
otat
e ne
wsp
rint o
f id
eas.
Team
sele
cts s
trate
gies
and
agr
ees t
o im
plem
ent t
hem
dur
ing
com
ing
inte
rven
tion
perio
d.
“Bas
ed o
n w
hat w
e se
e on
the
disp
lay,
wha
t’s o
ur c
hoic
e fo
r the
be
st st
rate
gy(ie
s)?”
Writ
e an
exp
licit
desc
riptio
n of
the
stra
tegy
on
the
SIR
F.
Team
pla
ns lo
gist
ics o
f im
plem
entin
g st
rate
gy:
• Te
am a
ssis
ts a
ll te
ache
rs in
lear
ning
stra
tegy
(if n
ot a
lread
y us
ed)
usin
g:
o
peer
mod
elin
g an
d co
achi
ng
o
grad
e-le
vel “
chat
s” re
gard
ing
impl
emen
tatio
n o
as
sist
ance
by
cont
ent s
peci
alis
ts, s
choo
l psy
chol
ogis
t, et
c.)
• Te
am lo
cate
s or c
reat
es in
stru
ctio
nal m
ater
ials
.
“As a
team
, how
can
we
mak
e th
is
real
ly h
appe
n fo
r our
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t do
we
have
to d
o to
mak
e su
re w
e al
l use
this
stra
tegy
as
plan
ned?
” “W
ho c
an h
elp
us w
ith
Ann
otat
e th
e SI
RF
with
“to
-do’
s.”
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
3
• Te
am p
lans
for s
elf-
mon
itorin
g of
use
of s
trate
gy.
• Ti
me
to c
reat
e/ad
apt m
ater
ials
•
Stra
tegi
es fo
r tea
chin
g st
rate
gies
to n
ovic
e te
ache
rs (e
.g.,
peer
co
achi
ng, m
odel
ing)
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d ho
w w
ill w
e kn
ow th
at w
e ar
e on
trac
k?”
Tie
r 2
Pr
oced
ure
T
ypic
al P
rom
pts
Rec
ord
Kee
ping
Te
am id
entif
ies w
hich
stud
ents
will
be
cons
ider
ed fo
r Tie
r 2
inte
rven
tions
. •
Rev
iew
all
avai
labl
e da
ta o
n th
ese
stud
ents
(e.g
., D
IBEL
S/A
IMSw
eb a
nd 4
Sigh
t Pro
ficie
ncy
lists
, or d
ata
spre
adsh
eet c
onta
inin
g al
l ass
essm
ent d
ata.
•
Iden
tify
stud
ents
who
are
in e
ach
sect
ion
(upp
er a
nd lo
wer
end
s)
of th
e “e
mer
ging
” or
“st
rate
gic”
are
a of
the
dist
ribut
ion
on th
e m
ost r
ecen
t ben
chm
ark
test
s. •
Che
ck fo
r cor
robo
ratio
n ac
ross
diff
eren
t sub
test
or a
sses
smen
t m
easu
res (
e.g.
, OR
F an
d 4S
ight
scor
es).
• D
ecid
e w
hich
stud
ents
nee
d Ti
er 2
inte
rven
tions
.
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts d
o w
e re
ally
hav
e to
wat
ch th
is q
uarte
r?”
“How
far b
ehin
d ar
e th
ese
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t has
bee
n th
eir s
lope
sinc
e th
e la
st a
sses
smen
t?”
“How
do
the
DIB
ELS/
AIM
Sweb
sc
ores
com
pare
with
thei
r 4Si
ght
scor
es?”
(for
inte
rmed
iate
gra
des
and
abov
e)
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts d
o w
e th
ink
will
ge
t to
benc
hmar
k w
ithou
t ext
ra
supp
orts
?”
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts w
ill n
eed
Tier
2
supp
orts
this
qua
rter?
”
Dat
a se
ts in
que
stio
n (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS,
4S
ight
). U
se fo
rmat
s w
ith st
uden
t nam
es
and
data
from
ong
oing
pe
rfor
man
ce
mon
itorin
g.
Rec
ord
nam
es o
n SI
RF.
Team
sets
a m
easu
rabl
e go
al to
ach
ieve
by
the
next
revi
ew p
oint
for
the
each
stud
ent i
dent
ified
for T
ier 2
supp
orts
. G
oal f
or e
ach
stud
ent s
houl
d be
stat
ed in
term
s of t
he d
esire
d sc
ore
to b
e at
tain
ed b
y th
e ne
xt b
ench
mar
k as
sess
men
t (ty
pica
lly
the
next
ben
chm
ark
scor
e), o
r im
prov
emen
t on
spec
ific
skill
re
late
d to
4Si
ght d
ata.
“Wha
t goa
l(s) s
hall
we
aim
for b
y ou
r nex
t rev
iew
poi
nt fo
r thi
s st
uden
t?”
Ann
otat
e m
easu
rabl
e go
al(s
) in
corr
ect
form
at o
n SI
RF.
Team
sele
cts t
he st
anda
rd p
roto
col s
trate
gy th
at th
ey fe
el b
est
mat
ches
to th
e st
uden
t’s id
entif
ied
area
of n
eed
in T
ier 2
. “L
et’s
dis
cuss
whi
ch st
anda
rd
prot
ocol
stra
tegy
mat
ches
this
R
ecor
d st
rate
gy o
n SI
RF.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
4
st
uden
t’s n
eeds
bes
t.”
Team
pla
ns lo
gist
ics o
f im
plem
entin
g st
rate
gy:
• Te
am id
entif
ies t
he in
stru
ctio
nal g
roup
in w
hich
the
inte
rven
tion
will
occ
ur.
• Te
am id
entif
ies f
requ
ency
and
dur
atio
n (a
mou
nt o
f tim
e ea
ch
day)
of t
he in
terv
entio
n.
• Te
am p
lans
for s
elf-
mon
itorin
g of
use
of s
trate
gy.
“Wha
t sta
ndar
d pr
otoc
ol
inte
rven
tion
grou
p sh
all w
e us
e fo
r th
is st
uden
t?”
“Whe
n an
d ho
w o
ften
will
the
inte
rven
tion
be d
eliv
ered
?”
“W
hat d
o w
e ne
ed to
do
as a
team
to
mak
e th
is re
ally
hap
pen
for o
ur
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t do
we
have
to d
o to
mak
e su
re w
e al
l use
this
stra
tegy
as
plan
ned?
“
How
will
we
know
that
we
are
on
track
?”
Ann
otat
e th
e SI
RF
with
“to
-do’
s.”
Use
stan
dard
pro
toco
l ch
eckl
ist t
o de
term
ine
fidel
ity o
f in
terv
entio
n.
Team
pla
ns fo
r pro
gres
s mon
itorin
g (a
t lea
st tw
ice
per m
onth
). Pr
ogre
ss m
onito
ring
for s
kills
such
as c
ompr
ehen
sion
or v
ocab
ular
y w
ill n
eed
team
con
side
ratio
n an
d m
ay b
e ba
sed
on th
e St
anda
rd
Prot
ocol
Inte
rven
tion
sele
cted
.
“How
will
we
mea
sure
thei
r pr
ogre
ss?”
“W
ho w
ill c
ondu
ct th
is
asse
ssm
ent?
”
Ann
otat
e SI
RF
with
pr
ogre
ss-m
onito
ring
plan
.
Tie
r 3
Te
am id
entif
ies w
hich
stud
ents
will
to b
e co
nsid
ered
for T
ier 3
in
terv
entio
ns
• R
evie
w a
ll av
aila
ble
data
on
thes
e st
uden
ts (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS/
AIM
Sweb
and
4Si
ght)
usin
g lis
ts o
r spr
eads
heet
. •
Iden
tify
stud
ents
who
are
in th
e “d
efic
ient
” or
“at
risk
” ar
ea o
f the
di
strib
utio
n on
the
mos
t rec
ent b
ench
mar
k te
sts.
• C
heck
for c
orro
bora
tion
acro
ss d
iffer
ent s
ubte
st o
r ass
essm
ent
mea
sure
s (e.
g., O
RF
and
4Sig
ht sc
ores
). •
Rev
iew
all
avai
labl
e pr
ogre
ss-m
onito
ring
data
for e
ach
stud
ent’s
ra
te o
f im
prov
emen
t (sl
ope)
.
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts a
re th
e m
ost
defic
ient
on
our l
ists
?”
“How
far b
ehin
d ar
e th
ese
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t has
bee
n th
eir s
lope
sinc
e th
e la
st a
sses
smen
t?”
“How
do
the
DIB
ELS/
AIM
Sweb
sc
ores
com
pare
with
thei
r 4Si
ght
scor
es?”
(for
inte
rmed
iate
gra
des
and
abov
e)
“W
hich
stud
ents
will
nee
d Ti
er 3
Dat
a se
ts in
que
stio
n (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS,
4S
ight
). U
se fo
rmat
s w
ith st
uden
t nam
es
and
data
from
ong
oing
pe
rfor
man
ce
mon
itorin
g.
Rec
ord
nam
es o
n SI
RF.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
5
• D
ecid
e w
hich
stud
ents
nee
d Ti
er 3
inte
rven
tions
.
supp
orts
this
qua
rter?
”
Team
sets
a m
easu
rabl
e go
al o
r goa
ls to
ach
ieve
by
the
next
revi
ew
poin
t for
the
stud
ents
iden
tifie
d fo
r Tie
r 3 su
ppor
ts.
Goa
l for
eac
h st
uden
t sho
uld
be st
ated
in te
rms o
f the
des
ired
scor
e to
be
atta
ined
by
the
next
ben
chm
ark
asse
ssm
ent a
s wel
l as
the
expe
cted
rate
of i
mpr
ovem
ent (
slop
e), o
r im
prov
emen
t on
spec
ific
skill
rela
ted
to 4
Sigh
t or o
ther
ass
essm
ent d
ata.
“Wha
t goa
l(s) s
hall
we
aim
for b
y ou
r nex
t rev
iew
poi
nt fo
r thi
s st
uden
t?”
Ann
otat
e m
easu
rabl
e go
al(s
) in
corr
ect
form
at o
n SI
RF.
Team
sele
cts t
he st
anda
rd p
roto
col s
trate
gy th
at th
ey fe
el b
est
mat
ches
to th
e st
uden
t’s id
entif
ied
area
of n
eed
in T
ier 3
.
“Let
’s d
iscu
ss w
hich
stan
dard
pr
otoc
ol st
rate
gy m
atch
es th
is
stud
ent’s
nee
ds b
est.”
Rec
ord
stra
tegy
on
SIR
F.
Team
pla
ns lo
gist
ics o
f im
plem
entin
g st
rate
gy:
• Te
am id
entif
ies t
he in
stru
ctio
nal g
roup
in w
hich
the
inte
rven
tion
will
occ
ur.
• Te
am id
entif
ies f
requ
ency
and
dur
atio
n (a
mou
nt o
f tim
e ea
ch
day)
of t
he in
terv
entio
n.
• Te
am p
lans
for s
elf-
mon
itorin
g of
use
of s
trate
gy.
“Wha
t sta
ndar
d pr
otoc
ol
inte
rven
tion
grou
p sh
all w
e us
e fo
r th
is st
uden
t?”
“Whe
n an
d ho
w o
ften
will
the
inte
rven
tion
be d
eliv
ered
?”
“W
hat d
o w
e ne
ed to
do
as a
team
to
mak
e th
is re
ally
hap
pen
for o
ur
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t do
we
have
to d
o to
mak
e su
re w
e al
l use
this
stra
tegy
as
plan
ned?
“
How
will
we
know
that
we
are
on
track
?”
Ann
otat
e th
e SI
RF
with
“to
-do’
s.”
Use
stan
dard
pro
toco
l ch
eckl
ist t
o de
term
ine
fidel
ity o
f in
terv
entio
n.
Team
pla
ns fo
r pro
gres
s mon
itorin
g (a
t lea
st o
nce
per w
eek)
. Pr
ogre
ss m
onito
ring
for s
kills
such
as c
ompr
ehen
sion
or v
ocab
ular
y w
ill n
eed
team
con
side
ratio
n an
d m
ay b
e ba
sed
on th
e St
anda
rd
Prot
ocol
Inte
rven
tion
sele
cted
.
“How
will
we
mea
sure
thei
r pr
ogre
ss?”
“W
ho w
ill c
ondu
ct th
is
asse
ssm
ent?
”
Ann
otat
e SI
RF
with
pr
ogre
ss-m
onito
ring
plan
.
Team
sets
nex
t mee
ting
date
.
“Whe
n sh
all w
e m
eet a
gain
to
revi
ew o
ur p
rogr
ess?
”
Ann
otat
e ne
xt d
ate
on
SIR
F.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
6
Inte
rim
Ste
ps (b
etw
een
mee
tings
):
• M
onito
r fid
elity
of i
nter
vent
ion.
•
Mon
itor s
tude
nt’s
pro
gres
s (C
BM
). •
Cha
nge
(fin
e-tu
ne) s
trate
gy (m
ay o
r may
not
requ
ire te
am m
eetin
g—te
ache
rs a
re e
ncou
rage
d to
con
tinue
to a
djus
t ins
truct
iona
l “p
ract
ice”
bas
ed o
n cl
assr
oom
per
form
ance
and
obs
erva
tion)
.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
7
Part
II. Q
uart
erly
Ben
chm
ark
(Fol
low
-up)
Mee
tings
B
efor
e th
e m
eetin
g:
• Te
am a
cces
ses s
tude
nts’
new
pro
gres
s-m
onito
ring
data
. •
Dat
a ar
e pr
ovid
ed to
the
team
(tea
cher
s and
oth
er sc
hool
per
sonn
el) i
n ad
vanc
e. D
ata
sets
incl
ude
DIB
ELS,
4Si
ght B
ench
mar
k,
Dia
gnos
tic a
nd C
lass
room
info
rmat
ion.
•
Sess
ion
faci
litat
or is
iden
tifie
d by
the
prin
cipa
l/des
igne
e, a
nd is
trai
ned
in te
am fa
cilit
atio
n.
• M
eetin
g lo
gist
ics,
incl
udin
g th
e da
te/ti
me,
pla
ce, a
nd a
n ag
enda
, are
arr
ange
d by
prin
cipa
l or d
esig
nee.
T
ier
1
Proc
edur
e
Typ
ical
Pro
mpt
R
ecor
d K
eepi
ng
Team
com
pare
s new
dat
a to
: •
Pres
ent g
rade
-leve
l goa
l •
App
ropr
iate
OR
F be
nchm
ark
for g
rade
and
tim
e of
yea
r o
%
at r
isk
o
% so
me
risk
o
%
low
risk
•
Prof
icie
ncy
leve
ls fo
r 4Si
ght,
with
add
ition
al in
form
atio
n fr
om
Item
Ana
lysi
s or S
ubte
st A
vera
ges
“Let
’s a
naly
ze h
ow a
re o
ur st
uden
ts
doin
g on
(ben
chm
ark
skill
)?”
Sum
mar
ize
salie
nt
data
on
SIR
F.
Team
eva
luat
es e
ffec
tiven
ess o
f stra
tegi
es u
sed:
•
Gai
ns w
ere
clea
rly li
nked
to st
rate
gies
for a
ll st
uden
ts.
• St
rate
gies
wor
ked
for s
ome
stud
ents
and
not
oth
ers.
• St
rate
gies
wor
ked
poor
ly.
• St
rate
gies
wer
e no
t im
plem
ente
d w
ith fi
delit
y (a
s pla
nned
).
“How
did
our
stra
tegi
es w
ork
this
pa
st q
uarte
r?”
Rec
ord
succ
essf
ul a
nd
unsu
cces
sful
st
rate
gies
.
Team
sets
a m
easu
rabl
e go
al o
r goa
ls to
ach
ieve
by
the
next
revi
ew
poin
t. •
Goa
l sho
uld
be st
ated
in te
rms o
f % o
f stu
dent
s mak
ing
x pr
ogre
ss
(giv
e a
num
ber)
tow
ard
iden
tifie
d be
nchm
ark
or %
of s
tude
nts
scor
ing
Prof
icie
nt o
r abo
ve o
n 4S
ight
.
“Wha
t goa
l(s) s
hall
we
aim
for b
y ou
r nex
t rev
iew
poi
nt?”
A
nnot
ate
mea
sura
ble
goal
(s) i
n co
rrec
t fo
rmat
on
SIR
F.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
8
Team
dec
ides
on
cont
inua
tion
of e
xist
ing
stra
tegi
es o
r sel
ects
new
on
es. I
f new
stra
tegi
es a
re d
esig
ned,
ana
lyze
with
filte
rs:
• St
rate
gy sh
ould
be
evid
ence
bas
ed.
• St
rate
gy sh
ould
be
prac
tical
. •
Cur
ricul
ar m
ater
ials
are
ava
ilabl
e to
impl
emen
t stra
tegy
or c
an b
e re
adily
cre
ated
. N
ote:
Stra
tegi
es m
ay n
eed
to c
hang
e be
caus
e in
stru
ctio
nal t
arge
ts
have
adv
ance
d.
“Bas
ed o
n w
here
our
stud
ents
are
no
w, s
hall
we
keep
our
exi
stin
g st
rate
gy o
r pla
n fo
r ano
ther
?”
Writ
e an
exp
licit
desc
riptio
n of
the
stra
tegy
on
the
SIR
F.
Team
pla
ns lo
gist
ics o
f im
plem
entin
g st
rate
gy:
• Te
am a
ssis
ts a
ll te
ache
rs in
lear
ning
stra
tegy
(if n
ot a
lread
y us
ed)
usin
g:
o
peer
mod
elin
g an
d co
achi
ng
o
grad
e-le
vel “
chat
s” re
gard
ing
impl
emen
tatio
n o
as
sist
ance
by
spec
ialis
ts (T
itle
I, lit
erat
ure
lead
er, s
choo
l ps
ycho
logi
st)
• Te
am lo
cate
s or c
reat
es in
stru
ctio
nal m
ater
ials
. •
Team
pla
ns fo
r sel
f-m
onito
ring
of u
se o
f stra
tegy
.
“Wha
t do
we
have
to d
o to
mak
e su
re w
e al
l use
this
stra
tegy
as
plan
ned?
“W
ho c
an h
elp
us w
ith
impl
emen
tatio
n?”
“How
will
we
know
that
we
are
on
track
?”
Tie
r 2
Pr
oced
ure
T
ypic
al P
rom
pts
Rec
ord
Kee
ping
Te
am re
view
s pro
gres
s of s
tude
nts w
ho h
ave
rece
ived
Tie
r 2
inte
rven
tions
. •
Rev
iew
all
scor
es (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS/
AIM
Sweb
and
4Si
ght)
for e
ach
stud
ent u
sing
list
s or d
ata
spre
adsh
eet.
• C
heck
for c
orro
bora
tion
acro
ss d
iffer
ent s
ubte
st o
r ass
essm
ent
mea
sure
s (e.
g., O
RF
and
4Sig
ht sc
ores
).
“How
did
our
stud
ents
do
in T
ier 2
th
is q
uarte
r?”
“How
far b
ehin
d ar
e th
ese
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t has
bee
n th
eir s
lope
sinc
e th
e la
st a
sses
smen
t?”
“How
do
the
DIB
ELS/
AIM
Sweb
sc
ores
com
pare
with
thei
r 4Si
ght
Dat
a se
ts in
que
stio
n (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS,
4Si
ght
Prof
icie
ncy
lists
). U
se
form
ats w
ith st
uden
t na
mes
and
dat
a fr
om
ongo
ing
perf
orm
ance
m
onito
ring.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
9
scor
es?”
(for
inte
rmed
iate
gra
des
and
abov
e)
Team
eva
luat
es e
ffec
tiven
ess o
f stra
tegi
es u
sed,
to d
eter
min
e if:
•
Gai
ns a
re c
lear
ly li
nked
to st
rate
gies
for e
ach
stud
ent
• St
rate
gies
wor
ked
for s
ome
stud
ents
and
not
oth
ers
• St
rate
gies
wor
ked
poor
ly
• St
rate
gies
wer
e no
t im
plem
ente
d as
pla
nned
“How
did
our
stra
tegi
es w
ork
this
pa
st q
uarte
r?”
“Did
we
impl
emen
t the
pla
n w
ith
fidel
ity?”
Prog
ress
mon
itorin
g da
ta o
n ea
ch st
uden
t.
Com
plet
ed le
vel-o
f-im
plem
enta
tion
prot
ocol
s.
Team
dec
ides
whi
ch st
uden
ts n
eed:
•
Con
tinue
d Ti
er 2
inte
rven
tions
•
Tier
3 in
terv
entio
ns
• To
dis
cont
inue
Tie
r 2 in
terv
entio
ns
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts h
ave
hit o
r are
nea
r be
nchm
ark
and
will
be
OK
with
out
Tier
2 su
ppor
ts?”
“W
hich
stud
ents
are
mak
ing
som
e ga
ins,
but w
ill c
ontin
ue to
nee
d Ti
er
2 su
ppor
ts th
is q
uarte
r?”
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts a
re fa
lling
furth
er
behi
nd a
nd n
eed
a m
ore
inte
nsiv
e in
terv
entio
n (T
ier 3
)?”
Rec
ord
nam
es o
n SI
RF.
Team
sets
a m
easu
rabl
e go
al o
r goa
ls to
ach
ieve
by
the
next
revi
ew
poin
t for
the
stud
ents
iden
tifie
d fo
r Tie
r 2 o
r 3 su
ppor
ts.
• G
oal f
or e
ach
stud
ent s
houl
d be
stat
ed in
term
s of t
he d
esire
d sc
ore
to b
e at
tain
ed b
y th
e ne
xt b
ench
mar
k as
sess
men
t, (ty
pica
lly
the
next
ben
chm
ark
scor
e), o
r im
prov
emen
t on
spec
ific
skill
re
late
d to
4Si
ght o
r oth
er a
sses
smen
t dat
a.
“Wha
t goa
l(s) s
hall
we
aim
for b
y ou
r nex
t rev
iew
poi
nt fo
r thi
s st
uden
t?”
Ann
otat
e m
easu
rabl
e go
al(s
) in
corr
ect
form
at o
n SI
RF.
Team
sele
cts t
he st
anda
rd p
roto
col s
trate
gy th
at th
ey fe
el b
est
mat
ches
to th
e st
uden
t’s id
entif
ied
area
of n
eed
in T
ier 3
.
“Let
’s d
iscu
ss w
hich
stan
dard
pr
otoc
ol st
rate
gy m
atch
es th
is
stud
ent’s
nee
ds b
est.”
Rec
ord
stra
tegy
on
SIR
F.
Team
pla
ns lo
gist
ics o
f im
plem
entin
g st
rate
gy:
• Te
am id
entif
ies t
he in
stru
ctio
nal g
roup
in w
hich
the
inte
rven
tion
will
occ
ur.
• Te
am id
entif
ies f
requ
ency
and
dur
atio
n (a
mou
nt o
f tim
e ea
ch
day)
of t
he in
terv
entio
n.
“Wha
t sta
ndar
d pr
otoc
ol
inte
rven
tion
grou
p sh
all w
e us
e fo
r th
is st
uden
t?”
“Whe
n an
d ho
w o
ften
will
the
inte
rven
tion
be d
eliv
ered
?”
Ann
otat
e th
e SI
RF
with
“to
-do’
s.”
Use
stan
dard
pro
toco
l ch
eckl
ist t
o de
term
ine
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
10
• Te
am p
lans
for s
elf-
mon
itorin
g of
use
of s
trate
gy.
“W
hat d
o w
e ne
ed to
do
as a
team
to
mak
e th
is re
ally
hap
pen
for o
ur
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t do
we
have
to d
o to
mak
e su
re w
e al
l use
this
stra
tegy
as
plan
ned?
“
How
will
we
know
that
we
are
on
track
?”
fidel
ity o
f in
terv
entio
n.
Team
pla
ns fo
r pro
gres
s mon
itorin
g: T
ier 3
-wee
kly.
Pr
ogre
ss m
onito
ring
for s
kills
such
as c
ompr
ehen
sion
or v
ocab
ular
y w
ill n
eed
team
con
side
ratio
n an
d m
ay b
e ba
sed
on th
e St
anda
rd
Prot
ocol
Inte
rven
tion
sele
cted
.
“How
will
we
mea
sure
thei
r pr
ogre
ss?”
“W
ho w
ill c
ondu
ct th
is
asse
ssm
ent?
”
Ann
otat
e SI
RF
with
pr
ogre
ss m
onito
ring
plan
.
Tie
r 3
Ana
lysi
s
Pr
oced
ure
T
ypic
al P
rom
pts
Rec
ord
Kee
ping
Te
am re
view
s pro
gres
s of s
tude
nts w
ho h
ave
rece
ived
Tie
r 3
inte
rven
tions
. •
Rev
iew
all
scor
es (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS/
AIM
Sweb
and
4Si
ght)
for e
ach
stud
ent u
sing
list
s or s
prea
dshe
et.
• C
heck
for c
orro
bora
tion
acro
ss d
iffer
ent s
ubte
st o
r ass
essm
ent
mea
sure
s (e.
g., O
RF
and
4Sig
ht sc
ores
).
“How
did
our
stud
ents
do
in T
ier 3
th
is q
uarte
r?”
“How
far b
ehin
d ar
e th
ese
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t has
bee
n th
eir s
lope
sinc
e th
e la
st a
sses
smen
t?”
“How
do
the
DIB
ELS/
AIM
Sweb
sc
ores
com
pare
with
thei
r 4Si
ght
scor
es?”
(for
inte
rmed
iate
gra
des
and
abov
e)
Dat
a se
ts in
que
stio
n (e
.g.,
DIB
ELS,
4S
ight
). U
se fo
rmat
s w
ith st
uden
t nam
es
and
data
from
ong
oing
pe
rfor
man
ce
mon
itorin
g.
Team
eva
luat
es e
ffec
tiven
ess o
f stra
tegi
es u
sed,
to d
eter
min
e if:
•
Gai
ns a
re c
lear
ly li
nked
to st
rate
gies
for e
ach
stud
ent
• St
rate
gies
wor
ked
for s
ome
stud
ents
and
not
oth
ers
• St
rate
gies
wor
ked
poor
ly
• St
rate
gies
wer
e no
t im
plem
ente
d as
pla
nned
“How
did
our
stra
tegi
es w
ork
this
pa
st q
uarte
r?”
“Did
we
impl
emen
t the
pla
n w
ith
fidel
ity?”
Prog
ress
mon
itorin
g da
ta o
n ea
ch st
uden
t.
Com
plet
ed le
vel-o
f-im
plem
enta
tion
prot
ocol
s.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
11
Team
dec
ides
whi
ch st
uden
ts n
eed:
•
Con
tinue
d Ti
er 3
inte
rven
tions
•
To d
isco
ntin
ue T
ier 3
inte
rven
tions
and
retu
rn to
onl
y Ti
er 2
su
ppor
ts
• To
be
refe
rred
for a
n ev
alua
tion
for s
peci
al e
duca
tion
elig
ibili
ty
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts h
ave
mad
e go
od
prog
ress
and
will
be
OK
with
out
Tier
3 su
ppor
ts?”
“W
hich
stud
ents
are
mak
ing
som
e ga
ins,
but w
ill c
ontin
ue to
nee
d Ti
er
3 su
ppor
ts th
is q
uarte
r?”
“Whi
ch st
uden
ts a
re fa
lling
furth
er
behi
nd a
nd n
eed
to b
e re
ferr
ed fo
r a
mul
ti-di
scip
linar
y ev
alua
tion?
”
Rec
ord
nam
es o
n SI
RF.
Team
sets
a m
easu
rabl
e go
al o
r goa
ls to
ach
ieve
by
the
next
revi
ew
poin
t for
the
stud
ents
iden
tifie
d fo
r Tie
r 2 o
r 3 su
ppor
ts.
• G
oal f
or e
ach
stud
ent s
houl
d be
stat
ed in
term
s of t
he d
esire
d sc
ore
to b
e at
tain
ed b
y th
e ne
xt b
ench
mar
k as
sess
men
t (ty
pica
lly
the
next
ben
chm
ark
scor
e), o
r im
prov
emen
t on
spec
ific
skill
re
late
d to
4Si
ght d
ata.
“Wha
t goa
l(s) s
hall
we
aim
for b
y ou
r nex
t rev
iew
poi
nt fo
r thi
s st
uden
t?”
Ann
otat
e m
easu
rabl
e go
al(s
) in
corr
ect
form
at o
n SI
RF.
Team
sele
cts t
he st
anda
rd p
roto
col s
trate
gy th
at th
ey fe
el b
est
mat
ches
to th
e st
uden
t’s id
entif
ied
area
of n
eed
in T
ier 3
.
“Let
’s d
iscu
ss w
hich
stan
dard
pr
otoc
ol st
rate
gy m
atch
es th
is
stud
ent’s
nee
ds b
est.”
Rec
ord
stra
tegy
on
SIR
F.
Team
pla
ns lo
gist
ics o
f im
plem
entin
g st
rate
gy:
• Te
am id
entif
ies t
he in
stru
ctio
nal g
roup
in w
hich
the
inte
rven
tion
will
occ
ur.
• Te
am id
entif
ies f
requ
ency
and
dur
atio
n (a
mou
nt o
f tim
e ea
ch
day)
of t
he in
terv
entio
n.
• Te
am p
lans
for s
elf-
mon
itorin
g of
use
of s
trate
gy.
“Wha
t sta
ndar
d pr
otoc
ol
inte
rven
tion
grou
p sh
all w
e us
e fo
r th
is st
uden
t?”
“Whe
n an
d ho
w o
ften
will
the
inte
rven
tion
be d
eliv
ered
?”
“W
hat d
o w
e ne
ed to
do
as a
team
to
mak
e th
is re
ally
hap
pen
for o
ur
stud
ents
?”
“Wha
t do
we
have
to d
o to
mak
e su
re w
e al
l use
this
stra
tegy
as
plan
ned?
“
How
will
we
know
that
we
are
on
Ann
otat
e th
e SI
RF
with
“to
-do’
s.”
Use
stan
dard
pro
toco
l ch
eckl
ist t
o de
term
ine
fidel
ity o
f in
terv
entio
n.
Dat
a An
alys
is T
eam
Scr
ipt.
Rev
ised
Feb
ruar
y, 2
008.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion.
Ada
pted
from
Kov
ales
ki, J
. F.,
&
Pede
rsen
, J. (
2008
). B
est p
ract
ices
in d
ata
anal
ysis
team
ing.
In
A. T
hom
as &
J. G
rimes
(Eds
.), B
est p
racti
ces in
scho
ol ps
ycho
logy,
V.
Bet
hesd
a, M
D: N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Sch
ool P
sych
olog
ists
.
12
track
?”
Team
pla
ns fo
r mor
e fr
eque
nt m
onito
ring
(Tie
r 2-m
onth
ly; T
ier 3
-w
eekl
y).
“How
will
we
mea
sure
thei
r pr
ogre
ss?”
“W
ho w
ill c
ondu
ct th
is
asse
ssm
ent?
”
Ann
otat
e SI
RF
with
pr
ogre
ss m
onito
ring
plan
.
Inte
rim
Ste
ps (b
etw
een
mee
tings
):
• M
onito
r fid
elity
of i
nter
vent
ion.
•
Mon
itor s
tude
nt’s
pro
gres
s (C
BM
). •
Cha
nge
(fin
e-tu
ne) s
trate
gy (m
ay o
r may
not
requ
ire te
am m
eetin
g—te
ache
rs a
re e
ncou
rage
d to
con
tinue
to a
djus
t ins
truct
iona
l “p
ract
ice”
bas
ed o
n cl
assr
oom
per
form
ance
and
obs
erva
tion)
.
NationalAssociationofStateDirectorsofSpecialEducationResponsetoIntervention:BlueprintstoImplementation
SchoolBuildingLevel
Consensus:
Objectives:(1)Maketimeandsupportsavailabletobuildandsustainongoingconsensus.(2)Identifytoolsneededtobuildconsensus.
(3)SBLTsunderstandimportanceofbuildingsufficientconsensusbeforemovingtowardsinfrastructurechanges.
5Actions:
(1) Developcommunicationandinformationsharingplanbetweenbuildingleadershipanddistrictrepresentative(s).WhatisthelinkbetweenDistrict’svision/missionandRtI?HowisthisdefinedandwhatrationaledobuildingshaveforadoptionofRtI?Whowillthisrationalebesharedwithbetweenthebuildingandthedistrict?Howwillthisinformationbepresentedtostakeholdersatdistrictandbuildinglevels?
(2) DevelopcommunicationandinformationsharingplanbetweenSBLTandschoolstaff.UsingtherationaleforadoptionofRtIatbuildinglevelbasedoninformationsharedwithdistrict,whowillfurthersharethisinformationtorestofstaffandhowwillitbepresentedtostaff?HowdoestherationaleforadoptionofRtIsupportthegoalsofthebuilding?WhatopportunitieswillexistandhowmanyprovidedtodiscusswhatPS/RtIis;whyitisher;thebenefitsPS/RtIcanprovide;thetypesofchangesneededtoimplementPS/RtI;andwhatimprovementsandsuccessesarehappeningattheschool?(e.g.,ongoingmonitoringandprovidingforconsensusbuilding).Finally,identifyorcreateaneedsassessment.Howwillyouknowwhenhelpisneeded?
(3) Assess/Targetconsensusneedsatbuilding.Definedecisionrulesforwhentocontinueoraddconsensusactivities(e.g.,%ofstaff…).Surveystaffusingneedsassessments.
(4) Makeadecisiontomoveforwardorcontinueeffortstobuildconsensus.Basedoncriteriaestablishedinstep3,shouldschoolcontinuetoprioritizeconsensusormovetoapriorityoninfrastructuredevelopment?(e.g.,stayatstep3ormoveontostep5).
(5) SustainabilityandConsistencymethods.Howwilltheschoolsustainandcontinuetoimproveandmaintainconsistencyinpracticesandproceduresovertime?HowdoesRtIintegratewithother“plans”attheschoollevel?Whatsupportsareavailableand/orneededoverthenext3‐7yearstoimplementPS/RtI?Whatmethodswillbeusedtoprovideongoingcommunicationandaflowofinformationtoallstakeholdersaboutimplementationprogressandsuccessesinstudentoutcomes?Howwillinstructionalpracticesbemeasuredforfidelity?HowwillimplementationofPS/RtIbemonitoredandwhatdataanddecisionrulesareneededtoevaluateeffortsatleastannually?
NationalAssociationofStateDirectorsofSpecialEducationResponsetoIntervention:BlueprintstoImplementation
SchoolBuildingLevel
Infrastructure:
Objectives:(1)Schoolleaderidentifiesmembersforandappointsaschool‐basedleadteamforRtIImplementation.(2)SBLTistrainedsufficientlytoleadchangeeffortsatschoolwithstaff.
(3)BuildingstaffincludingSBLTmembersunderstandtheprocessofworkingthroughquestionsaboutimplementingPS/RtIandthatmuchofthebuildingofinfrastructurehappensovertimethroughdiscovery.
3Actions:
(1) EstablishaSBLTcomprisedofschoolleadership;data/assessmentexperts;contentspecialists;
facilitators;andstaffliaisons.(2) DevelopsupportplanforSBLT.(3) 10QuestionstoguideaseriesofactionplanstoestablishandbuildinfrastructureforPS/RtI
use.a. IsCoresufficient?
(Tier1Prob.ID)
b. Ifnot,why?(Tier1Prob.Analyze)
c. WhatTier1modificationswillbemade?
(Tier1Intervention)d. Didimprovementplanswork?
(Tier1RtIDecision)e. WhocontinuestogetTier1andwhogetsstandardprotocolinterventionsandwho
requiresadditionaldiagnosticinformation?
(Tier2/Tier3Prob.IDandProb.Analyze).f. Whatsupplementsareneeded?
(Tier2/Tier3Prob.Analyze).
g. Howdeliversupplements?(Tier2/Tier3InterventionsandSupportplans).
h. Howwilleffectivenessofsupplementsbemonitored?
(Tier2/Tier3InterventionsandRtIDecision).i. Howwillstudentsbeidentifiedasneedingmoresupplementsorlesssupplements?
(Tier2andTier3DecisionRules).
NationalAssociationofStateDirectorsofSpecialEducationResponsetoIntervention:BlueprintstoImplementation
SchoolBuildingLevel
Implementation:
Objectives:(1)Est.mastercalendarandmasterschedulearoundinstructionalneedsofstudents.
(2) Ensureneedsofstudentsreceivingcore,supplementandintensiveservicesareaddressedinthoseschedules.
(3) SBLTunderstandssupplement/intensiveinstructionisinadditionto,andnotareplacementof,coreinstruction.
(4) Implementationsupportsaresystematicallybuiltintotheproceduresoftheschool.
(5) Datesarescheduledforallassessments(screenings,diagnostic,progressmonitoring).(6) Datesareschedulesfordecision‐makingaboutstudents’instruction(flexiblegrouping).(7) Sufficientexpertiseisavailabletoassisttheschoolinmakingdata‐baseddecisions.
(8) Successes,nomatterhowsmall,arecelebratedbyallinvolved.(9) Abuilding‐levelevaluationplaniscreatedandputinplace.Dataarecollectedovertime.
(sustainabilityandconsistencyplanisputinplace).
7Actions:
(1) Provideongoingprofessionaldevelopmentandsupportsforappropriatepersonsinvolvedwithdeliveringorusingcurricula,instructions/interventions,andassessments.Whowillreceivetrainingonuseofcurriculummaterialsinschool?Whowillreceivetrainingontheinstructionalpracticesusedintheschool?Whowillreceivetrainingonhowtocollect,summarize,organize,anddisplaythevarioustypesofdataidentifiedforuseattheschool?Whowillreceivetrainingonhowtointerpretstudentdatausedattheschool?Whowillreceivetrainingonhowtosupportand/orevaluatetheschool’sPS/RtIimplementationefforts?Whenarethesetrainingsscheduleandwhoisprovidingthetraining?
(2) Implementuseofdatamanagementsystem(s)atschool.Organizeteamstructuresinbuildingandscheduleteamsduringyearaccordingtolevelofinvolvementindataanalysisatschool(e.g.,schoollevelvs.gradevs.classroom,etc.)andfrequencyofdatause.Scheduleassessmentstobecollectedandresourcesneededtocollectthroughyear.Scheduletimestomeetatappropriatelevelsofbuildingtoanalyzedataandmakedecisions;includingdataonimplementationstatusofPS/RtI.
(3) Providematchedinstruction/supportstothestudentsattheschool.Useongoingdataatallthreetierstodeterminewhatchangesareneededinservicesandforwhomthoseserviceswillbechanged.MonitorforfidelityofPSmodelandintervention/instructionimplementation.Whataretheresourcesattheschoolandhowistheirappropriationmadebasedonstudentdata/needsattheschool?Whatotherlogisticsareneededtoensureteachersandsupportmembershavesufficientinformationtooperateindependentlyandcollaboratively.
(4) DevelopandFollowtheEvaluationPlantoMonitorImplementationofPS/RtI.E.g.,cycle/calendartoschedulemonitoringactivitiesforimplementationofPS/RtI.Whenwillinstructionbemonitoredforfidelityandhowwillthatbemeasured?HowwillPS/RtIimplementationprogressbemeasured?Whatassessment(s)willbeused?Whatdecisionrulesneedtobedevelopedtoguidedecisionmakingwhileusingimplementationdata?Dotheserulesneedtobematchedandspecifictotheassessmentsbeingusedorwillgeneraldecisionrulesrelatedtostudentdataandfidelitymeasurementsbeconsidered?
(5) ProgramEvaluationEngageinongoingevaluationoftheinputs,processes,andoutputsoftheschoolonaspecifiedtimeline.ContinuallymonitortheeffectivenessandefficiencyofimplementingandutilizingPS/RtIattheschool.Whatdataiscontinuallycollectedinaformativemannertomonitorthepracticesandproceduresfollowedattheschoolasitrelatestostudentsaccessingappropriateinstructionalservicesfortheirneeds?Threetypesofapproachesprovidedinblueprints(Asarecommendation,allthreeshouldoccurtogivestrengthtotheoverallprogramevaluationfindings:(1)Examinestudentoutcomes(%ofstudents)inconsiderationofneedforcore,supplemental,andintensiveinstruction;(2)Examinedataonchangesinaccountabilitystatus;(3)ExaminedataonthenumberofinitialESEeligibilitiesbyyear.
(6) CommunicateRegularlywithSchoolStaff.Whenwillthesecommunicationsoccurandwhoreceivesthem?Howcanteachers/staffreportproblemswiththesystem/infrastructure/implementationaspectsofPS/RtIattheschool?Willtherebedifferentcommunicationmethodstoandamongstaffatdifferenttiersofservicesinrelationtotheirownclassroomofstudents?(e.g.,newsletterattier1;staffpresentationsforTier1;PLC/Grade‐LevelTeammemos/meetings;teacherscheduledmeeting/supportrequestwithPSteamforTier2or3?)Whatkindsofdatadisplaysforeachtierandeachcontentarea/assessmentwillbeusedacrossallgrades?(e.g.,percentagegraphsfortier1data?LinegraphsforTier2groups?WilltherebeoptionsatTier2and3withguidelinesforuse/display?Whowillhaveaccesstospecificgraphsonstudentperformance(e.g.,Parents?).Whatstandardsneedtobefollowedregardingstaff/parentcommunicationsaboutschoolimprovementefforts?Howwilltheschoolpresenttier1,2,and3datatoaparentwhileadheringtoidentityprotectionpoliciesforotherstudentsintheschool?HowcanteachersalertSBLTofconcernsateithertier?Howcantheyreportaneedforaccess?Howwillsupportpersonnelbestructuredtorespondtoemergencyorpriorityofschool/teacher/studentneeds?
(7) CelebrateYourSuccesses!Celebrateateverystepwhensomethingworks.Takenoteofallactivitiesthathelpedimproveoutcomesforstudentsintheschools.Whatconditionswerepresentwhentheinstruction/interventionwasprovided?Whatisresponsibleforthesuccess?Anycomponentsunnecessaryforuseinfuture,similarcases?Whatmaterialswereneededtomakeitwork?Whatkindsofsupports?Etc.Howwilltheschoolcelebratesuccesswithparents?Celebratewithnearbycommunitymembers?District?Etc.
School-based PS/RtI Implementation Plan Planning and Developing the Infrastructures Needed to Support PS/RtI
Tier 1 Infrastructure
Directions: For each question, discuss as a team and document your discussion. If you need additional pages to write on, please attach them as needed.
1. Which of the following best describes the structure of your school-based team (SBLT; Lead Team; etc.) that is responsible for monitoring, adjusting, and evaluating Tier 1 instructional effectiveness? ___ Anyone as needed and available ___ Always same 6-8 people for every meeting ___ 2-3 consistent members and others attend as needed based on focus of meeting.
2. When will the Team meet during the 2009-2010 school-year to monitor, make decisions about and/or evaluate Tier 1? Date Time Location Topic Facilitator
3. Using the grid on the attached document (Tier 1 Priorities), rate each group on a scale of 1-5 (5=highest concern or lowest proficiency %). What will be your TOP #3 priorities for the 2009-2010 School Year?:
Top 3 Priorities for 2009-2010 School-Year:
Discuss and document the school’s long range goals: (2-3 years? 5 years?):
4. Describe the general information and procedures needed to conduct the Tier 1 evaluation meetings at your school (use information you provided in Question #2). Consider the following guiding questions as available for use if appropriate:
• Meetings: when, where and with who? • Roles and Respons. of Team members • Facilitator?, record keeper?, and meeting manager (e.g., time keeper)?. • Any Rules for the Meetings? Expectations for members? • Anything required in advance of every meeting? • How should team prepare for each meeting (e.g., review notes, data, agenda, etc.) • Meeting minutes: Where kept and how shared to school personnel? • What documentation will be specifically required in all or some meetings? (e.g., small
group planning form). • How will data be collected and shared with members of the Team?
o Graphed? Input into data system? Etc. Hint: Be specific about data collection, summary, and dissemination strategies.
• How will fidelity of Tier 1 instruction be measured? (e.g., Principal walk-throughs)?
5. What are the expectations for each stakeholder at the school to participate in the use of any Tier 1 data?
• Leadership: • Teachers: • Specialists/Itinerants: • Support: • Students/Parents:
School-based PS/RtI Implementation Plan Planning and Developing the Infrastructures Needed to Support PS/RtI
Tier 2 Infrastructure 1. Using the attached form, “Data Management Planning for Tier 2”, put a check mark for each
group of people at the school who will be primarily responsible for the following data management components. Consider using an “S” to indicate persons providing support.
a. Collecting Tier 2 data b. Summarizing/Organizing Tier 2 data (e.g., enter it into a computer) c. Creating Tier 2 graphs d. Disseminating Tier 2 data graphs e. Analyzing Tier 2 data graphs f. Make or assist with making Tier 2 decisions
2. Using your Resource Maps identify who will primarily provide Tier 2 instructional services
directly to students and who will primarily serve as “S” (support).
3. How will those persons providing Tier 2 services be expected to use Tier 2 data to make educational decisions? Consider the following guiding questions for use:
a. Which primary team structure will be responsible for monitoring, adjusting, and evaluating Tier 2 instruction? Teachers, Grade level Teams, Support and Leadership involved?
b. How will the School-based leadership team be involved in supporting/providing/or evaluating Tier 2 instruction?
c. How will non-instructional or itinerant personnel provide support for Tier 2 instruction? d. How will the frequency of using Tier 2 data be determined and supported? (e.g.,
every Grade level team meeting, every week/month, combination of different venues as needed?)
e. How will fidelity measurement be collected and used at Tier 2 f. Is there a need to create procedures for any persons involved in using Tier 2 data
specific to their role? g. Are there any standard decision rules for determining when adjustments to Tier 2
should be made and when students should be considered for intensive Tier 3 services?
h. How will overall School effectiveness of Tier 2 services be evaluated (as a whole school or by grade level?)
i. How will data at Tier 2 inform adjustments to Tier 2 services, products, programs in the following year?
j. How will effective Tier 2 services/instructional strategies/programs be identified and developed for use as standard protocols the following school year?
Tier
1 P
riorit
y P
lann
ing
Dire
ctio
ns: F
or e
ach
blan
k sp
ace,
use
a n
umbe
r fro
m 1
to 5
(5 =
hig
hest
con
cern
or l
owes
t % p
rofic
ient
) so
as to
iden
tify
rela
tive
prio
ritie
s fo
r Tie
r 1.
Use
sch
ool o
utco
me
data
and
/or a
vaila
ble
know
ledg
e an
d in
form
atio
n ab
out y
our s
choo
l’s T
ier 1
go
als.
If t
here
are
are
as th
at y
ou a
re u
nsur
e ab
out –
ple
ase
indi
cate
so
with
“N
S”.
If a
grou
p do
es n
ot a
pply
to th
e
dem
ogra
phic
s at
you
r sch
ools
ple
ase
indi
cate
with
“N
A”.
R
eadi
ng
Mat
h S
cien
ce
Writ
ing
Beh
avio
r To
tal
M
ale
Fe
mal
e
Eth
nici
ty
H
ispa
nic
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
an
W
hite
Am
eric
an In
dian
Asi
an P
acifi
c
Mul
tirac
ial/E
thni
c
Oth
er G
roup
s
ELL
Stud
ents
w/
Dis
able
Free
/Red
uce
Lunc
h
Mig
rant
Gift
ed
Dat
a M
anag
emen
t Pla
nnin
g fo
r Tie
r 2
Dire
ctio
ns: F
or e
ach
gene
ral a
ctiv
ity o
f dat
a m
anag
emen
t on
the
left,
indi
cate
with
a le
tter “
P” th
ose
scho
ol s
taff
mem
bers
who
w
ill b
e pr
imar
ily re
spon
sibl
e/in
volv
ed a
nd a
lette
r “S”
for p
erso
ns w
ho w
ill p
rovi
de s
uppo
rt.
If th
ere
will
be
diffe
renc
es b
ased
on
con
tent
are
a, p
leas
e se
para
te o
ut in
eac
h bo
x.
L
eade
rshi
p G
ener
al E
d Te
ache
r E
SE T
each
er –
A
cad.
E
SE T
each
er –
B
eh.
ESO
L/La
ngua
ge Iti
nera
nt/S
peci
alis
ts
Col
lect
T2
Dat
a
Inpu
t/Org
aniz
e D
ata
Prod
uce
Gra
ph o
f Dat
a
Dis
sem
inat
e D
ata
Gra
phs
Ana
lyze
T2
Dat
a
Mak
e T2
Dec
isio
ns
TableActivity#1Developcommunicationandinformationsharingplanbetweenbuildingleadershipanddistrictrepresentative(s).UsingyourDistrict’simplementationplantodate,answerthefollowingquestions.Discusswheretheanswer/informationislocatedinyourDistrict’splananddiscusswhattheimplicationsareforyourschool’scommunicationandinformationsharingplansbetweenbuildingleadership(e.g.,SBLT)andschoolstaff.
1. WhatisthelinkbetweenDistrict’svision/missionandPS/RtI?
2. HowisthislinkdefinedandwhatrationaledobuildingshaveforadoptionofPS/RtI?
3. HowwillinformationbesharedbetweenthebuildingandthedistrictwithrespecttoimplementationofPS/RtI?(e.g.,Whatisthedivisionofresponsibilitybetweenbuildingleadershipanddistrict
leadershipwithrespecttocommunicationofimplementationlevels,needs,and/orsuccesses?).
4. Howwillthisinformationbepresentedtostakeholdersatdistrictandbuildinglevels?(e.g.,includingexternalstakeholders–parents,community,colleges/universities(teacherpreservice),etc.)
TableActivity#2
DevelopcommunicationandinformationsharingplanbetweenSBLTandschoolstaff.
1. UsingtherationaleforadoptionofRtIatbuildinglevelbasedoninformationsharedwithdistrict,whowillfurthersharethisinformationtorestofstaffandhowwillitbepresentedtostaff?
2. HowdoestherationaleforadoptionofRtIsupportthegoalsofthebuilding?
3. Whatopportunitieswillexisttodiscusswithstaffonanannualbasis:
Howmany? DescribeOpportunities:WhatPS/RtIis;whyitishere
ThebenefitsPS/RtIcanprovide
ThetypesofchangesneededtoimplementPS/RtI
Whatimprovementsandsuccessesarehappeningattheschool?
4. Whatwillyourschoolusetomonitortheongoingneedsamongstaffthroughouttheyear(i.e.,needs
assessment)?
TableActivity#3
Assess/Targetconsensusneedsatbuilding,andmakeadecisiontomoveforwardorcontinueeffortstobuildconsensus.Definedecisionrulesforwhentocontinueoraddconsensusactivities(e.g.,%ofstaff…).Surveystaffusingneedsassessments.
Directions:
Discusswithyourteamaboutwhatdata/informationiscurrentlyavailableeitherthroughyourschoolorthroughtheprojectthatyouwanttoplantouseforidentifyingandmonitoringstaffneedsinrelationtoconsensusactivities.
BasedonyourdiscussionsandtheidentificationofaneedsassessmentinTableActivity#2Question#4:
1. Whatcriteriawillyourteamusetodeterminehowmuchadditional,follow‐up,ornewconsensusactivitiesareneededandwhenpriorityshouldshifttoinfrastructuredevelopment?
2. Whatadditionalconsensusbuildingactivitiesshouldbeplanned/arecurrentlyplannedforuseatyourschool?
3. WhattypesofactivitiesshouldbeprioritizedbasedonyourworkonTableActivity#2Question#3?Whatresourceswillbeneededtoprovidetheplannedconsensusactivities?Whatbarriersneedtoberemovedtoprovideplannedconsensusactivities?
TableActivity#4
SustainabilityandConsistencyMethodsDiscusswithyourteamwhatconsensusactivitiesmightneedtobeplannedtoanswerthefollowingquestions?1. HowdoesRtIintegratewithother“plans”attheschoollevel?
2. Whatsupportsareavailableand/orneededoverthenext2‐3yearstoimplementPS/RtI?
3. Whatmethodswillbeusedtoprovideongoingcommunicationandaflowofinformationtoallstakeholders(externalandinternal)aboutimplementationprogressandsuccessesinstudentoutcomes?
4. HowwillyourteamensureandmonitorthefidelityofusingProblem‐solvingmodelatalltiers(e.g.,
whatdataanddecisionrulesareneededtoevaluateuseofPSmodelbystaffatleastannually)?
