The Evolution of Data-Based, Multi-Level Academic Supports in a Rural Wisconsin School District Scott Moline, School Psychologist Jason Windsor, Director

The Evolution of Data-Based, Multi-Level Academic Supports

in a Rural Wisconsin School District

Scott Moline, School PsychologistJason Windsor, Director of Special Education and Pupil Services

Westby Area School District

Westby Area School District Demographics

• Coon Valley Elementary School (Pre-K-4): 121 total students (1 track school)

• Westby Elementary School (Pre-K-4): 352 students (3 track school)• Westby Area Middle School (5-8): 337 students• Westby Area High School (9-12): 331 students

• Predominately rural; 1142 students Pre-K-12; 95.5% white; 12.5% students with disabilities; 35.9% economically disadvantaged; 1.1% limited English proficiency; below state average in overall achievement; student growth; and closing gaps

What are we doing?

• Building an airplane while flying it• Versus• Continued evolution• Verus• A communication-based/data-based continuous improvement cycle

Guiding Principles

"The probability of remaining a poor reader at the end of

fourth grade, given a child was a poor reader at the end of

first grade, was .88 .... the probability of remaining an

average reader in fourth grade, given an average reading

ability in first grade, was .87." (Juel, 1988)

• Therefore prioritize early intervention (K-2)

Meeting expected Rate of Improvement (ROI)

• Title 1 exit criteria?• Exit from title if student achieves end of year benchmark two times

on progress monitoring and meets (grade-level) expectations on Fountas and Pinnell benchmarking system OR achieves benchmark on tri-annual screening.

• Turn and Talk: what is best practice exit criteria from tier 2/title? How long (weeks, months, years) should students stay in tier 2/title?

Intensive Interventions

• Scientific research-based or evidence-based (substantial documented scientific evidence of effectiveness);

• Use with individual or small groups; • Focus on single or small number of discrete skills closely aligned to individual learning

needs (consistent with the area of SLD concern); • Culturally appropriate; • A substantial number of instructional minutes beyond what is provided to all students; • Implemented with adequate fidelity • Applied in a manner highly consistent with its design • At least 80% of the recommended number of weeks, sessions, minutes [Wis. Admin.

Code §§ PI 11.02 (1), (4e), (6m), (12) and PI 11.36 (6)(f)4.]

Scientific research-based intervention, as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 7801 (37), means:

• i. Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; • ii. Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the

general conclusions drawn; • iii. Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across

evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators;

• iv. Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;

• v. Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication, or at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and

• vi. Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.

Evidence-based interventions

• as defined in the Wisconsin rule, means scientific research-based interventions with substantial evidence of their effectiveness through multiple outcome evaluations [Wis. Admin. Code § PI 11.02 (1), (4e)].

Intensive Interventions

• Effective December 1, 2013, all evaluations of public schools students to determine initial SLD eligibility must be completed after a student has received at least two intensive, scientific-research or evidence-based interventions (SRBIs)

• Each district needs at least 2 intensive interventions K-12 in reading, writing, and math

What if we don’t have Scientific research-based interventions?• Short-term savings, long-term cost!• Having the lowest 25 percent of students underperforming may affect

school report card• Too many students in tier 2/Title (due to lack of dismissal)• Too many students in tier 3 (due to lack of effective tier 2)• Too many students identified with specific learning disabilities

• Long-term cost of special education to the district• Long-term cost of special education to the student

How we got at least two intensive interventions:

• Step one: Find out what we have. We did a google docs survey to ask all staff in the district what interventions, of any kind, they have.

• Hint: resend at least a second time and emphasize that people should report anything that could possibly be construed as being an intervention. Also, verify that the WHOLE intervention is present and not just a single book from an old series.


• Step two: Agree as a team, with the participation of all stakeholders (Reg. ed. Teachers, Title 1 teachers, Reading Specialists, school psychologists, administration) which interventions currently available in school/district meet the criteria for being scientific research-based.

• Hint: refer to SLD law criteria.


• Step three: Stakeholder committee meets regularly to review research to identify needed intensive interventions. Major considerations include intervention effectiveness, extent of research, financial cost of programs, and training required.

• Hint: See websites below and look for an effect size of .25 or greater. • Also companies advertising “researched-based” may mean “this program was

created, at least in part, by using some research.”

• http://www.wirticenter.com/intervention2/• http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-interventio

n-tools

http://www.wirticenter.com/intervention2/

http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools

http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)

• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) permits, and sometimes requires, local educational agencies (LEAs) to use Part B funds for coordinated, early intervening services (CEIS).

• IDEA 2004 regulations at 34 CFR 300.226 permit an LEA to use up to 15% of Part B funds to develop and implement CEIS. Coordinated early intervening services are for students who have not been identified as students with disabilities under IDEA but who are determined to need additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in general education.

• IDEA 2004 regulations at 34 CR 300.646(b)(2) require an LEA to reserve 15% of Part B funds for CEIS when it has been determined to be a district with significant disproportionality. Such LEAs must provide CEIS particularly, but not exclusively, to students in those groups that were significantly over identified.

• CEIS may be used for students in kindergarten through grade 12, with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade 3 and include:

• Professional development for teachers and other school staff for the delivery of scientifically based academic instruction and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction and instruction in the use of adaptive and instructional software, and

• Providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports. 34 CFR 300.226(b)

• Any LEA that uses Part B funds for coordinated early intervening services must annually report to the state education agency on:• The number of students served by coordinated early intervening services, and• The number of students served by coordinated early intervening services who subsequently receive special education and related services during the

preceding two-year period. 34 CFR 300.226(d)

• IDEA CEIS funds may be used to supplement, but not supplant, activities funded with and carried out under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 34 CFR 300.226(e)

http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ceis

http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ceis-fed-regs

http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ceis-fed-regs

http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ceis

Intensive Reading InterventionsGrade Basic Reading Skills Fluency Comprehension

Kindergarten

Explode the Code, Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading

Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading, Explode the Code


1


Read Naturally, HELPS, Explode the Code, Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading


2


Read Naturally, HELPS, Explode the Code, Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading


3

Explode the Code, Sonday System, Reading Mastery, Early Interventions in Reading, Academy of Reading

Read Naturally, HELPS, Explode the Code, Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading, Corrective Reading, Academy of Reading

Explode the Code, Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading, Academy of Reading

4

Explode the Code, Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading, Corrective Reading, Academy of Reading

Read Naturally, HELPS, Explode the Code, Sonday System, Corrective Reading, Early Reading Interventions in Reading, Academy of Reading

Explode the Code, Sonday System, Early Reading Interventions in Reading, Academy of Reading

5

Sonday System 2, Corrective Reading, Academy of Reading

Read Naturally, HELPS, Sonday System 2, Corrective Reading, Academy of Reading

Sonday System 2, Academy of Reading

6


Read Naturally, HELPS, Sonday System 2, Corrective Reading, Academy of Reading


7


Read Naturally, Sonday System 2, Corrective Reading, Academy of Reading


8


Read Naturally, Sonday System 2, Corrective Reading, Academy of Reading


High School




Math Intensive Interventions

Grade-Level Intervention Name

K-1 Connecting Math Concepts, Number Worlds

2 Connecting Math Concepts, Number Worlds

3 Corrective Math, Number Worlds, Academy of Math




7Corrective Math, Essentials for Algebra, Number Worlds, Academy of Math

8Corrective Math, Essentials for Algebra, Number Worlds, Academy of Math

High SchoolCorrective Math, Essentials for Algebra, Academy of Math

Low SES/ELL Interventions

• Tier 2 and 3 interventions• Language for Learning (K-2)• Photo Library (pre-K – Adult)• Worldly Wise by EPS looks similar, but we don’t have it

Screening• Grades K-1 Aimsweb (reading and math)

• Benchmarks/cut-scores match classroom observations• Some computer scoring (reading) and group administration (math)• Somewhat time/personnel intensive

• Grades K-2 PALS (reading)• Informs classroom instruction (more of a summative test?)• More time/personnel intensive than Aimsweb• Benchmarks/cut-scores seem very low

• Grades 2-11 STAR (reading and math)• Have STAR data from 2006• Can quickly group administer whole class within 20 minutes• Benchmarks/cut-scores seem a little low

Progress Monitoring

• Have used DIBELS, DIBELS NEXT, and STAR reading/math• Currently use Aimsweb K-12

• Title 1 in elementary schools administer Aimsweb for progress monitoring• Two teacher aides in MS administer Aimsweb for progress monitoring• No use of Aimsweb for progress monitoring in HS besides Special Education

Building Consultation Team (BCT) meetings

• Prior to this year we held BCT teams • Held for individual students• Problem-solving for individual students• Reinventing the wheel/admiring the problem/having too many meetings• Pre-referral meeting• Depended on teacher referral and therefore missed students

Student Support Team (SST) meetings

• Monthly meetings with all stakeholders in attendance: Grade-Level Teachers, Title 1, Reading Specialist, Principal, Guidance Counselor, School Psychologist, Director of Special Education

• All recent screening and progress monitoring data are put up on smartboard

• Collaboratively combine data with teacher input to move students in/out of interventions according to flow chart

• Discuss skill deficit vs. performance deficit• Review historical student data (i.e. STAR)• Meeting goal vs meeting ROI• Problem-solving

How has RtI affected special education?

• The high quality effective “programs” in tier 2/3 started to make special education services look bad by comparison

• Philosophical change in special education • High expectations for ALL students in special education• Have a graduation plan (from special education) for every student

• Actual changes in special education• Maximize time spent in regular education (with appropriate preparation/support)• Pull-out time is spent consciously building skills• Minimize time spent on homework completion

• Turn and talk: How do we decide when to move a student from a high quality effective tier 2/3 system into special education?

SLO’s and PPG’s

• Screening data to identify need for SLO’s• Progress monitoring data to measure SLO’s (reg. ed. and spec. ed.)

• Also use percentile rank (PR) and Student Growth Percentile (SGP) scores from screening to measure SLO’s

• Direct link between RtI and SLO/PPG’s• Focus on continuous improvement• Change focus from teaching to learning• Adjust instruction regularly based on data• Each department triages/prioritizes needs (usually means a focus on

reading)

Preliminary results

• Currently 105 tier 2/3 students in elementary are “ near target” or “above target” on meeting aimsweb reading goals and 32 are “below target.”

• Of the 137 being progress monitored, 70% are on-track to meet end of the year goals at the moment.

• Some students below target are making expected Rate of Improvement (ROI)

• Areas of improvement: • 1. 30% in tier2/3 need to improve• 2. Tier 1

Thank You!

Documents

The Evolution of Data-Based, Multi-Level Academic Supports in a Rural Wisconsin School District Scott Moline, School Psychologist Jason Windsor, Director