RtI for students with significant disabilities

RtI for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities:

Effective Literacy Instruction

Stefanie Bauer, S.S.P.

Carrie F. De La Cruz, Ph.D.

IAASE

January 20th, 2011

www.wordle.net

• Background

• Leg 1: Instruction

• Leg 2: Assessment

• Leg 3: Teaming

• Conclusion

Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011

Background

The practice of providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and using learning rate over time and level of performance to make important educational decisions.

Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse,

D.,Reschly, D, Shrag, J.. & Tilly, W.D. (2005). Response to Intervention:

Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National

Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.

In Other Words, RtI is…

A data-based decision making process designed to improve educational and behavioral outcomes for ALL

students.


• Not just about books, about communication

• Literacy is how we take in information and how we give information

• Literacy is an important life skill


http://store.mayer-johnson.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/X/0/X0706.png


Learning to read and write: • Enhances cognitive development • Facilitates fuller participation at school • Increases employment opportunities • Facilitates social relationships • Provides a meaningful and enjoyable leisure

pursuit. • Provides a means to communicate more

effectively • Has a positive impact on self esteem




The 3 “Legs” of RtI:

Instruction

Assessment

Teaming

Leg 1: Instruction

1. Best Practices

2. Special Considerations

3. What We’re Doing

4. Lessons Learned

• Think about your district / school / student

• What are you doing for Leg 1: Instruction?




Best Practices in Reading Instruction

• National Reading Panel – 5 Big Ideas

• Direct and explicit instruction

• Core & supplemental research-based programs

• 90 min a day


Tier 1 Core Instructional Interventions

• All students

• Core Curriculum

• Universal Screening (3/year)

3 Tiers of Reading Support

80%

Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions

• Some students (at-risk)

• Small group interventions plus Core Curriculum

• Progress Monitoring (1/week)

15%

Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions

• Individual Students

• More than 30 min./day of extra reading support

• Progress Monitoring (1/week)

5%


Special Considerations for Students with Significant Disabilities

1. Many students at the earliest levels of literacy development

2. Little research available about effective reading instruction for this population

3. Core program may only meet the needs of a few students in the classroom

4. Students have very unique and challenging learning profiles

5. Given good instruction, students with significant disabilities can learn to read beyond sight words

Literacy Begins at Birth: Building the Foundation

• Language and vocabulary development

• Shared book experiences


Whole to Part to Whole

• Develop interest in books and

stories

• Associates pictures with words

• Text carries the meaning

•Speech to text boundaries

•Sound manipulation

skills

• Alphabet

•Letter / sound

correspondence

• Decoding individual words

• Reading connected text

De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010

Literacy

Book / Print Awareness

Letter Identification

Phonological Awareness

Phonics Sight Words /

Pictures

Vocabulary / Comprehension

Writing


Four Developmental Stages

Fluent Literacy Learner

Emergent Literacy Learner

Literacy Novice

Literacy Beginner


Literacy Development Profile Beginner Novice Early to Upper

Emergent Upper Emergent to Fluent

Concepts of Print X

Letter Identification X

Phonological Awareness X

Phonics X

Spelling and Writing X

Symbol / Word Reading X

Vocabulary and Comprehension X

Literacy Instruction for Students with

Moderate to Severe Disabilities

DIY – Do It Yourself Literacy Instruction

Instruction Using Packaged

Comprehensive Program

Combination of DIY and Packaged

Program

What We’re Doing








http://www.mayer-johnson.com/products/all-curriculum/



Instructional Planning Form (IPF) Instructional Strategies

Skill Teaching Strategy

Materials Arrange-ments

Time Assessment Procedures

Letter

ID

• Explicit instruction in letter names

• Identification of letters in context

• Practice Games

• A to Z Letter flashcards (80% known, 20% unknown) – note order to be taught

•Reading materials in classroom

• Reading A to Z Alphabet Books

•Environmental Print

•Alphabet Bingo, Alphabet Spin Game, Alphabet Egg Puzzles

• 1:1

• Group

• Group

• Morning work time

•Through-out day

•Afternoon reading group

• Literacy Benchmark Assessment – Letter ID Fluency

Phono-logical Aware-

ness

•Explicit instruction in rhyming and blending (compound word, onset-rime, syllable)

•Practice Games

• “Phonological Awareness Training for Reading”

•Rhyming word sorts, initial sound word sorts, Guess Who, Rhyming Bingo, etc.

• 1:1

•Group

• Morning work time

•Afternoon reading group

• Progress in PA curriculum

Lessons Learned:

• Students need BOTH direct and explicit instruction in individual skills AND literacy experiences and a literacy rich environment.

• Remember the written expression aspect of literacy.

• Reading comprehension is strongly tied

to language and vocabulary

development.


• Are you thinking about doing something different for Leg 1: Instruction?




Leg 2: Assessment 1. Best Practices



4. Lessons Learned


• What are you doing for Leg 2: Assessment?




Screening / Benchmark

To identify who has needs. To identify how students compare to one another. To measure if groups of students are making progress over time. Occurs two or more times a year for all students.

Diagnostic / Skill Analysis

To determine student skill strengths and weaknesses to support instructional planning. This assessment done as needed.

Progress Monitoring

To determine whether instruction is having an impact on student progress on specific skills. Progress monitoring occurs monthly or weekly.

Outcome / Accountability

To determine if students are meeting expected standards.

Best Practices: Assessment for Different Purposes

• Reliable

• Valid

• Standardized

• Able to be given repeatedly over time

• Sensitive to growth over time

• Simple and time efficient

Best Practices: Characteristics of Progress Monitoring Tools


• Students need multiple ways of demonstrating their knowledge

• Accuracy more reflective of student ability than fluency – but less sensitive to small amounts of growth.

• Difficult to stick to standardization

• Students may have gaps in skills

(e.g., comprehension)

Special Considerations for Students with Significant Disabilities

Screening / Benchmark

• Documenting levels of literacy attainment annually on NSSED Literacy Tracking Form

Diagnostic / Skill Analysis

• Collecting a variety of data to determine student skill strengths and weaknesses as needed.

• Resources: Assessments built into curricula, CBM and CBE tools, other classroom materials

Progress Monitoring

• If possible, use weekly / monthly CBM fluency measures

• If necessary, use CBM tools as accuracy measures • Resources: AIMSweb, IGDE’s, RIPM, Intervention

Central

Outcome / Accountability

• NSSED Literacy Tracking Form • IEP Outcomes Study • IAA

What We’re Doing



Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM) (www.progressmonitoring.org)

– RIPM Research → Significant Cognitive Disabilities

– Tools available to assess several skill areas


http://www.progressmonitoring.org/

Intervention Central www.interventioncentral.com

- CBM Warehouse → Probe Generators

- Can select settings such as upper/lower/both, font, font size, number to appear on page, etc.


http://www.interventioncentral.com/


• AIMSweb (www.aimsweb.com) – Many tools available

• Preschool Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDE’s) (www.ggg.umn.edu) – Preschool level assessments

• Reading Inventories (e.g., Jerry Johns, Eckwall-Shanker)

http://www.aimsweb.com/

http://www.ggg.umn.edu/

“Touch the picture that says /m/ /a/ /p/”




Lessons Learned • Traditional universal screening /

benchmarking (all students 3x a year on same measure) does not work.

• Assessment to drive instruction must be done, but may require significant modification

• Progress can be very slow

• Your assessment toolkit must be deep, varied, and flexible

• Ongoing assessments become our re-evaluation information


• Are you thinking about doing something different for Leg 2: Assessment?




Leg 3: Teaming

1. Best Practices



4. Lessons Learned


• What are you doing for Leg 3: Teaming?




1. District Leadership Team

2. School Improvement Team

3. Grade Level Team with Targeted

Supports

4. Individual Problem Solving & Special Ed Decision

Making Team

1. A District-Level RTI Team to Make Things Happen for the District

2. A School Improvement Team to Make Things Happen for the School

3. A Grade-level Team with Support to Make Things Happen for Groups of Students

4. A Problem-Solving Team to Make Things Happen for Individual Students


Best Practices: Problem Solving Method

Plan Evaluation Did our plan work?

Problem Analysis Why is it happening?

Problem Identification Is there a problem? What is it?

Plan Development What shall we do about it?


Special Considerations

• Students with cognitive disabilities require more intensive teaming and instructional planning efforts

• Plan for their instructional needs within the wider school instruction and teaming efforts to the greatest extent possible


ELS School Improvement Team

• Team with representation across all disciplines meets together once per month to discuss program-wide goals and issues

• The program’s RtI-related goals are

developed and evaluated by this

team 1. District Leadership

Team



ELS Individual Problem Solving Teams

• A team consisting of an Administrator, Teacher, School Psychologist, SLP, OT, PT, and Program Nurse meet bi-monthly to discuss classroom and student-specific goals and issues

• Lots of “informal” teaming amongst team members outside of group meeting times

1. District Leadership Team


3. Grade Level Team with Targeted

Supports

4. Individual Problem Solving & Special Ed

Decision Making Team


Lessons Learned… • Some consistency in teaming norms, process,

and procedures is necessary to make sure that literacy instruction is a focus of the team’s time and energy

• Support is needed in terms of materials, training, and curriculum coaching is necessary for implementing reading instruction


Lessons Learned…

• Schedule separate team meetings to review and plan for literacy instruction. Regular team meeting time does not typically allow for in depth problem solving on a student’ literacy progress.

• Teachers want to be held accountable for providing effective literacy instruction • Enlist parent support for carryover


• Are you thinking about doing something different for Leg 3: Teaming?




Conclusion

Beginning of the School Year – August / September

• Identify student current skill level using existing resources and additional data when necessary.

• Develop comprehensive instructional plan • Identify progress monitoring strategy (what, when, who).

Relate to IEP goals when appropriate. • Implement instructional plans

• Obtain / Create materials • Put instructional time in schedule • Identify training needs • Periodically review progress on implementation

• Implement progress monitoring plan • Obtain / organize materials • Train Staff when necessary • Create graph / chart for data review


Middle of the School Year – October – March

• Regularly update progress monitoring data on chart / graph

• Periodically review data to determine whether students are making adequate progress. Make instructional changes when appropriate. Note changes on instructional plan.

• Periodically check to ensure instructional plans are being carried through with integrity. Are we doing what we said we would do?


End of the School Year – April – June

• Conduct Re-Evaluations • Review existing data • Update of student skill level / skill analysis • Describe current instruction plan • Identify direction of future instruction • Identify opportunities for generalization

• Write New Goals • Identify current level of performance across areas • Identify area for new goal • Work with team to write goal

• Update Literacy Tracking Form • Identify current skill development level • Describe current instructional plan • Include current progress monitoring data


Contact Information

Stefanie Bauer

[email protected]

Carrie De La Cruz

[email protected]