aligning instruction/intervention with the wi sld rule changes: best practices for cc teachers mmsd...

Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

1

Aligning Instruction/Intervention with the WI SLD Rule Changes:

Best Practices for CC TeachersMMSD 5.20.2013

Ed O’Connor, Ph.D Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

Who are We? What Is Our Connection with the WI SLD Rule

• Ed• Disclaimer• Contact Info:

– [email protected]• Website: www.milcleaders.org

Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional Leadership Council 2

mailto:[email protected]


3

Learning Objectives

• Build and/or extend background knowledge of SLD rule principles and requirements (The Basics)

• Establish or deepen understanding of the relevance and value of SLD rule for Continuous School Improvement (CSI) actions and the broader MTSS system framework- (Connections)

• Learn and discuss how these factors well be relevant for Interventionists (Application)


4

ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CC TEACHERS


5


6


7

CC Teacher Role

• Support System evolution toward SRBI• Needs identification, selection, scheduling• Participate in planning and supporting training • Consult on interventions• Support and collect participation data• Support and collect outcome data• Communication: SBLT, Gen. Ed., Parents….• IEP Team Participation• Support for transition to Spec.Ed. Or Gen. Ed.

High above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still, he couldn’t shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this was a new trick.

We are being asked to accomplish things we’ve never done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence



9

Leaving the Discrepancy Model• Traditional methods were ineffective • Frequently overrepresented minorities• Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancy

determination did not help select “the right students

• Rates of placement were increasing • Effects of Special Education questioned• There was clear evidence that discrepancy

models were not being used consistently


10

A Changing Paradigm

From• Problem is in the student• Medical model• Assessment of processing• Diagnosis and placement• Accommodation and

modification• Dependence

To• Problem is in the instruction• Behavioral model• Assessment of skill• Instruction and effect• Acceleration

• Independence


11

OTHER GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS


12

DefinitionsPI 11.02 (1), (4e), (6t), (6m), (9), (10), (11), and (12)

• Adequate Fidelity• Evidence-Based Interventions• Interventions• Intensive Interventions• Probes• Progress Monitoring• Rate of Progress• Scientific-Research Based• Appropriate Instruction


13

Sunset Significant Discrepancy…………. ……New Identification Process Begins

December 1, 2013


14

FROM A FORMULA TO A PROCESSThinking will be required…

Systematic Planning & Problem-Solving

1. DefineWhat do we want students to know and be able to do?

2. AnalyzeWhy is this not occurring?

3. ImplementWhat are we going to do about it?

4. EvaluateIs it working?

1. Set a goal and identify how you will measure that goal.

2. Identify resources and obstacles to attaining that goal.

3. Prioritize obstacle and select one obstacle for action planning.

4. Identify strategies to eliminate or reduce the obstacle.

5. Develop action plan to implement strategies.

6. Develop follow-up plan.

7. Evaluate impact of the action plan.

8. Evaluate progress on original goal.

4-Step Process 8-Step Process

15

Define–What do we

want students to know and be

able to do?

Analyze–Why is this not

occurring?

Implement–What are we going to do

about it?

Evaluate–Is it working?

5. Develop Action Plan

2. Identify Resources & Barriers

3. Prioritize Barriers

4. Identify Strategies to Eliminate or Reduce

Barriers

7. Evaluate if Barriers were Eliminated

or Reduced

1. Set a Goal, and Identify How to Measure that Goal

6. Develop Follow-up Plan

8. Evaluate if Goal in #1 was Achieved

16


17

USING RTI IN SLD EVALUATIONThe WI SLD Rule

General Considerations and Specific Requirements (The Basics)


18

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS


19

Overall IEP ProcessNo Change

• Referral/Notice• Review Existing Data• Consent (if needed)• Additional Assessment (if needed)• Eligibility Determination• IEP Placement (if eligible)• Re-Evaluation Criteria…No Change


20

WI SLD Achievement AreasNo Change

Eight Areas: oral expression listening comprehension written expression basic reading skill reading fluency reading comprehension mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving



22

Insufficient Progress

Inadequate Classroom

Achievement

IMPAIRMENT?NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION?

Must meet criteria for all three: insufficient progress, inadequate classroom achievement, and no exclusionary factors


23

Specific SLD Rule Requirements

Inadequate AchievementInsufficient Progress

Need for Special Education


24



Achievement



25

Inadequate Classroom Achievement

Classroom Achievement is Inadequate If…

• Achievement test administered AFTER intensive intervention

• Achievement test used that is technically adequate– Individually administered– Norm referenced– Valid and reliable– Diagnostic of impairment in the area of potential SLD

• Student’s standard score is 1.25 Standard Deviations below the mean or lower in one or more of 8 areas



27

Individually Administered Achievement Test

• 1.25 SD cut score on reliable/valid test• Must be administered after intensive

intervention• Same cut score standard applies regardless of

intellectual ability• Applies to each area of potential concern

PI11.36(6)(6)1


28

INSUFFICIENT PROGRESS


29



Achievement



30

Skills for Which We Compute RoI (Rate of Improvement)

• Reading– Oral Reading Fluency– Word Use Fluency– Reading Comprehension

• MAZE/DAZE• Retell, Word Use

– Early Literacy Skills• Initial Sound• Letter Naming • Letter Sound • Phoneme Segmentation • Nonsense Word

• Spelling• Written Expression

– TWW, CWS, WSC

• Math– Math Computation– Math Concepts– Math Facts– Early Numeracy

• Oral Counting• Missing Number• Number

Identification• Quantity

Discrimination• Behavior


31

Insufficient Progress based on Progress Data From Evidence-Based Interventions

• The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards…

• in one or more of the eight areas …• using a process based on the student’s

response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions

PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a

Intervention Data to Consider

• The IEP team shall consider progress monitoring data from at least two intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions, implemented with adequate fidelity and closely aligned to individual student learning needs

PI 11.36 (6) (c) 2. a


Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention

When is the rate of progress considered insufficient in an SLD determination?

The gap is the same or getting largerThe gap is closing, but will not result in reaching the

average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time

ORGap is improving, but resources needed to continue the

rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional

Leadership Council 33


34

Insufficient Progress Determined Establish baseline data point before beginning an

interventionBegin the interventionMonitor student progress weekly for minimum

of 8 weeks

Formal progress monitoring data must be collected; median score of three probes is used for baseline data point


35

Individual CC Teacher Reflection• What stage is your building in preparing for

the new SLD rule?• Do existing assessment routines meet the

requirements in the WI SLD rule?• Do existing intervention routines meet the

requirements in the WI SLD rule?• What additional planning and support will be

needed?• How will we know if we are on the right track?

WI SLD RuleChanges…Changes…..Changes…..

• Three Criteria: (Must meet criteria for all 3)– Inadequate classroom achievement (after intervention)– Insufficient progress

• Progress monitoring of scientific-research based interventions• Discrepancy analysis – SUNSETS December, 2013.

– No exclusionary factors found primary

• Sources of Data– Observation– Formal and informal assessment data

• Documentation requirements• Additional Team Members requiredCopyright 2013 Midwest Instructional



37

SLD Evaluation and Data Sources

• Review of assessment data– Standardized test scores– Individually administered assessments– Data from progress monitoring of “intensive

interventions”– Classroom assessment data– Student work products– Parent report– Teacher report– Other…


38

Two Systematic Observations• Routine Classroom Instruction

– All evaluations and re-evaluations– At least one observation during core instruction in EACH area of

concern.– One observation may address multiple areas of concern– The observation must be conducted by a member of the IEP team

• Intensive Intervention (initial public school students, when using PM)– At least one during intensive intervention for EACH area of SLD

concern– One observation may address multiple areas of concern– The observation must be conducted by a member of the IEP team– Must be conducted by someone OTHER than the person providing

the intervention


39

Additional Team MembersIEP Teams Must Include:• Licensed person qualified to assess data on individual

rate of progress • Licensed person who implemented scientific, research-

based or evidence-based, intensive interventions• Licensed person qualified to conduct individual

diagnostic evaluations• Student’s general education teacher or individual

licensed to teach a student of the same age (required of all IEP teams)

• One team member can serve multiple rolesPI 11.36(6)(d)3


40



Achievement




41

EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS


42



Achievement




43

Exclusionary Factors and the Interventionst

• Principle of “uniqueness” – Core– Intervention

• Data collection and interpretation• Matching interventions

– Culturally responsive– Linguistically appropriate

• Engagement/Participation


44

Outcome Data Flags Possible Exclusionary Factors

• It is not necessary to explain the causal relationship. The existence of generally similar outcomes for groups of students is enough.

• Discussion of possible causes will be important to address the observed group performance patterns.

• Documenting perceived attempts to meet group needs is not sufficient.– Demonstrating culturally responsive practice is not

sufficient if the group is showing less than desireable outcomes.

Applying the Exclusionary Factors

How are the exclusionary factors applied to determining SLD eligibility?

–The IEP team may NOT identify a student as SLD if any of the exclusions is the primary reason for inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress



46

Exclusionary Factors

Environmental, Economic,

Cultural Factors

Lack of Appropriate Instruction

Limited English

Proficiency

Other Impairments


47

ExclusionsCultural, Environmental or Economic Factors, or

Limited English Proficiency

Questions for IEP team consideration in all cases:

– Is the referred student a member of a cultural, economic or language related subgroup?

– What is the academic progress (in the area of student concern) of the subgroup compared to ALL students at the grade or age level?

• Unique relative to the group?


48

If Exclusionary Factor is Evident

• SLD identification may not be appropriate– Is it the “primary reason” for the skill gap?

• Intervention emphasis may change to address the suspected causal factor

• Evidence of an exclusionary factor does NOT remove the responsibility of the school to provide FAPE… but Special Education may not be the appropriate source of the intervention.


49


Environmental, Economic, Cultural

Factors


Limited English

Proficiency

Other Impairments


50

INTERVENTION CONSIDERATIONS When Exclusionary Factors are Evident


51

Consideration of Socio-Economic Factors

• Learning pattern similar to other students experiencing similar socio-economic challenges?

• Learning needs related to a lack of opportunities to learn?

• What contexts (e.g. health, nutrition, schedule, safety mobility…) may be impacting learning?

• Under what conditions or in which contexts does the student demonstrate better learning?


52

Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

Mobility Attendance

Family change Recent trauma

Did the student move a lot or miss a lot of school?

Is the concern a localized learning problem…or something more?

What intervention strategies might moderate or mediate these factors?


53

Considering Ethnic, Racial, Cultural and Familial Factors

• What pattern of performance compared to similar peers?

• Are the materials and strategies used in assessment free from cultural bias?

• Did interventions address cultural, racial, ethnic or familial variables?

• Are the curriculum, instruction and general climate respectful of the beliefs, customs and traditions of the child and his/her family?


54



Cultural Factors


Limited English

Proficiency

Other Impairments


55

Exclusion: Lack of Appropriate Instruction

The IEP team may not identify a student as SLD if the reason for inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress is a lack of appropriate instruction

– IEP team considers appropriate general education instruction in the area(s) of concern

– No requirement to document appropriate instruction in all 8 areas


56


Is there evidence that the student received appropriate instruction in the

area of concern?

Core instruction provided regularly?-Student Attended?-Student Engaged?

Core instruction delivered according to

design and methodology by qualified personnel?

Differentiated instruction in the core

curriculum was provided?


57

Exclusion: Lack of Appropriate Instruction

Data: How are other students performing?To verify that appropriate instruction was provided,

IEP teams may choose to use grade level assessment information such as:

– WKCE participation and results– Benchmark assessment data– District wide assessments aligned to standards– Grade level common assessments


58

Evaluating Lack of Appropriate Instruction

• This is an ongoing responsibility– Usually this is accomplished through routine

data analyses and reporting completed by the School Based Leadership Team (SBLT)

• “Core” instruction is a most significant factor contributing to learning outcomes

• Three components to be evaluated…


59

1. Achievement Level and Growth of Other Similar Students

• All students• Relevant subgroups to which the student

being evaluated belongs.

Lack of appropriate instruction is not likely the primary factor leading to the learning concern if most students (e.g. 80% +) in the class and in relevant subgroups are achieving and progressing at expected rates.

– “uniquely” low skills and rate of progress relative to similar peers receiving the same instruction


60

#2 and #3 Progress Monitoring Data from Supplemental and Intensive Instruction

• Effective intervention routines are demonstrated when many similar students receiving supplemental or intensive interventions are progressing at a faster rate than the student being evaluated.


61

Problem with System? or Need for Interventions?

62

Fall Winter Spring

Bobby 21-67

Woody 16-63

Edward 15-58

Truman 24-57

James 10-53Intensive <26

17 students25%

Intensive <26

17 students25%

Intensive10 students15%

Intensive10 students15%

IntensiveIntensive

StrategicStrategicIsis 30-86

Johanna 35-85

A.S. Marie

31-76

Peggy D 33-73

Benchmark45 students05-06 66%04-05 61%03-04 56%




Benchmark05-06 04-05 68%03-04 54%

Benchmark05-06 04-05 68%03-04 54%

Strategic <43, >=26

6 students9%

Strategic <43, >=26

6 students9%

Strategic10 students15%

Strategic10 students15%

Target: 43 72 90

Total 68 67 Enrollment:

2nd grade

42

Peggy N 43-71Tom T 65-70

Goal 70%

2

10

Credit: SCRED


63



Cultural Factors


Limited English

Proficiency

Other Impairments


64

Evaluating the Role of Limited English Proficiency

• If an individual student’s performance does not fall below the performance of peers with similar linguistic backgrounds the student’s needs are not likely due to a disability.

• Additional considerations– Are the assessments being used free from cultural bias?– Have assessments been administered in the language and form

most likely to yield accurate information about the student’s skills?

– Did the interventions provided address language needs?– What is the students performance on measures of linguistic skill

(BICS/CALP…)?


65



Cultural Factors


Limited English

Proficiency

Other Impairments


66

Other Impairments

SLD can co-exist with some areas of impairment

Primacy considerations

Cannot co-exist with cognitive disability

Examples of Report Language:

Documentation of Effective Instruction and Intervention• John has received appropriate instruction in reading

throughout his four years at Lincoln Elementary School (K-3). Since kindergarten, John’s teachers have used the SRA Reading Mastery reading series, which uses explicit instructional procedures to teach the “big ideas” in reading. This research-based program has been successful in bringing 80% of the current third graders to proficiency. All of John's teachers have had extensive training with SRA. Fidelity checks conducted by reading coaches and the school principal indicate that the SRA program has been used with a high degree of fidelity. (Documentation of the fidelity checks are on file in the principal's office.)

(cont.)• John has been provided with intensive reading interventions at tier 2

of Lincoln's three-tier model since September of 2008. He has been provided with small-group interventions to address his difficulties in phonemic awareness and decoding skills, using the Early Reading Intervention (ERI) program (Scott Foresman). ERI has been identified by the Florida Center for Reading Research as a research-based practice, and has been shown to significantly increase the proficiency of students at tiers 2 and 3 in Lincoln School. Fidelity checks conducted by the district’s reading coordinator indicate that the reading teachers who implemented the ERI program have done so with a high degree of fidelity. (Documentation of the fidelity checks are on file in the principal's office.)

Examples of Report Language:

Documentation of Repeated Measures of Assessment• Since kindergarten, John has been assessed during the

universal screening in reading three times per year (fall, winter, spring). Since his involvement with tier two interventions this year, John's progress has been monitored using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) on a weekly basis. Results of both universal screening and progress monitoring have been provided to his parents through written reports and periodic parent conferences.


70

Reflection Time:

Are We Ready?


71

Foundation Building Questions

• What do we already know and do?– How do we know/How can we find out?

• What additional information and support will we need?

• Who will communicate and support this learning?

• When will this occur?• How will we know if we are on the right track?


72

Reflection Time:

Self-Assessment of Readiness


73

Guiding Questions

• How will we demonstrate that “appropriate instruction” is being delivered?– Is our core effective? For whom?– Do we have data regarding effectiveness for

subgroups? What does it tell us?• Do we evaluate the effectiveness of

interventions? For subgroups?– Do we have evidence that our interventions are

effective?


74

DECISION MAKING AND DOCUMENTATION

Decision Making: Thinking is Required!

• While the rule is specific (perhaps too specific) the decision still requires IEP team thinking and analysis– There is no cookbook– Skills for systematic analysis of data is required– Context needs to be considered as a source of

error



76


77


78

Making Decisions: Lessons From the Field

• When tracking on grade level, consider an RoI that is 100% of expected growth as a minimum requirement

• An RoI that is at or above the needed is optimal• 100% of expected and on par with needed

become the limits of the range within a student should be achieving

79Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional Leadership

Council

Looking at Percent of Expected Growth

Tier I Tier II Tier III

Greater than 150%

Between 125% & 150%

MonitorGap

Between 95% & 125%

May Need More

Between 80% & 95%

May Need More

May Need More

Insufficient

Below 80% Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient

Determining “Sufficient” Progress and “Reasonable” time

Practical application recommendation based upon

available evidence.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 240

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

26 26

35

28

40

30

45

50

28

38

25 26

38

33

45

50

45 45

56

40

58

40

6265

84

101

112

Progress Monitoring Oral Reading Fluency Grade 4 Example

PM DataLinear (PM Data)Linear (PM Data)Norm Avg Score (25th percentile)

Is the gap closing fast enough?

What information does one consider?

Three sources of data are needed.

Determination of expected performance occurs before data collection.

1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

84

101

112

f(x) = NaN x + NaN


PM DataLinear (PM Data)Linear (PM Data)Aimline = 1.25 * Norm ROINorm Avg Score (25th percentile)

Norm ROI .78

Average norm sample performance at each BM period (Students at the 25th Percentile)

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

26

84

101

112

f(x) = NaN x + NaN



Norm ROI .78

Baseline Data

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

2626

84

101

112

f(x) = NaN x + NaN



Norm ROI .78

BL Data serves as the initial point of the “aimline” (expected performance)

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

2626

43

60

84

101

112

f(x) = NaN x + NaN



Norm ROI .78

Aimline ROI: 1.25(.78) = .98

Aimline at 18 Weeks: 26 + .98(17) = 26 + 16.66 = 42.66 (Round to 43)

Aimline at 36 Weeks: 26 + .98(35) =26 + 34.3 = 60.3 Round to 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

26 26

35

28

40

30

45

50

28

38

25 2626

43

60

84

101

112

f(x) = 0.199300699300699 x + 31.7878787878788



Norm ROI .78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 240

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

26 26

35

28

40

30

45

50

28

38

25 26

38

33

45

50

45 45

56

40

58

40

6265

26

43

60

84

101

112

f(x) = 1.20695652173913 x + 25.4963768115942



Norm ROI .78

Intensive Intervention I (SRBI)

Intensive Intervention II (S-RBI)


89

ANOTHER TOOL TO AID DECISION-MAKING

Ditkowski & O’Connor 2013


90


91


92


93


94


95

A Decision Regarding Eligibility for SLD Has Been Made…..

Are We Done???


96

NO!!!!!!If student meets eligibility criteria for SLD…• Intensive Interventions must continue• Interventions must be monitored• Student must be making progress at sufficient

rate of learning• We need to work harder to accelerate the

learning


97

If student does not meet eligibility criteria….• Intensive Intervention may need to be

continued awhile longer• Additional classroom supports need to be

considered• Student progress continues to be monitored


98

Opportunities in the New SLD Law and RTI/MTSS

We can effectively teach all students to high levels of expectations

More students will receive the intervention and additional support they need without the burden of labels

“Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re Nomads, for crying out loud.”

It is about…….CONTINUOUS School Improvement….will we ever be ‘there’?Copyright 2013 Midwest Instructional



100

SYSTEM CONNECTIONS

Relevance and Value of SLD rule Elements for School Improvement and MTSS


101

CORE INSTRUCTION for ALL

ALL Students will be College and Career ready

Data and Assessment Decision-Making Next Generation Assessments Explore/Plan/ACT MAP AIMSwebOther Summative Assessments Formative Assessments

Assessment Results Inform Instruction

Instruction What? How? CCRS ModelingCRS Guided Practice Learning Objectives Scaffolding21st Century Skills Formative AssessmentBehavior Active Participation

Supplemental

Intense


102

RTI and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)

• Wisconsin uses Multi-Level Systems of Support• MTSS has replaced RTI as the overarching term

for tiered models to include behavior and academics

• Emphasis is on the entire “System” and improving outcomes for ALL students

• RTI is a quantifiable outcome– Can be used for SLD Identification– Must be used for SLD WI starting on 12/1/2013


103

MTSS: Who Is Responsible?

General SpecialEducation Education


104

MTSS: Begins With System PerformanceIf: • System structures and processes are not optimized, many will

not reach benchmarks…Then:• Curriculum casualties will be referred for supplemental services

and/or special education• Resources will be insufficient • Supplemental and intensive responses will be overwhelmed

and ineffective• Student learning will not improve• Teachers will be frustrated• Parents will be frustrated• Politicians will write a law to require better outcomes


105

MTSS: Basic Premises• Effective Instruction is a non-negotiable

• Student outcomes reflect the quality and match of instruction/intervention to student need

• Focus of all actions is on “controllable variables”

• Cannot do “more” in existing time frame – work differently

• Special education represents a level of resources and expertise in the educational system not a label or a place


106

Key Assumptions• All intervention and eligibility decisions are

based on the assumption that the “core” instruction--academic and behavior--is effective

• Supplemental instruction can be delivered through “standard protocols” of intervention to groups of students with common needs

• Data drives decisions• Its all about the rate of student progress in the

amount of time remaining• Data collection WITHOUT intervention integrity

is useless


107

How Does it Fit Together?

Addl.Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

All Students at a grade level

ODRsMonthly

Bx Screening

Bench-Mark

Assessment

AnnualTesting

Behavior Academics

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly Assessments

StandardProtocol

SmallGroupDifferen-tiatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

Why a Pyramid?

Tier 3

Tier 1

Tier 2

An aerial view- emphasizing that all students need a strong foundation in core instruction and that all students are part of the same educational system.


109

Problem with System? or Need for Interventions?

Significant Obstacles Frequently Observed

• Insufficient “core” instruction• Over-focus on purchasing different interventions• Lack of sufficient support and training in “best-

practices”• Culture of independence and professional

judgment• Lack of support for data and assessment • Insufficient Fidelity to Procedures• Educator Beliefs


111

Who Is Going to Do This?

• All of us……

• Each school will need to determine how to allocate resources according to their needs and priorities.– IRT– Reading Interventionist– Title– General Education


112

Reflection and Processing Time:

Self-Assessing System Readiness


113

THE ROLE OF DISTRICT SUPPORT STAFF


114

District Support1. Actively involved, leadership that frequently provides visible connections between a MTSS framework and district improvement efforts.

2. Alignment of policies and procedures across classroom, grade, building, & district

3. Facilitation and coaching of a problem-solving process to support planning, implementing, and evaluating effectiveness of services.

4. Collaborative partnerships with all stakeholders

5. Comprehensive, data-systems for supporting decision-making at all levels

6. Sufficient availability of coaching supports to assist school team and staff problem-solving efforts.

7. Ongoing data-driven professional development activities that align to core student goals and staff needs.

8. Communicating outcomes with stakeholders and celebrating success frequently.

High Quality Core Instruction/Interventions

• Common Core Standards• Mondo • Curriculum Companion• Math Core Practices• Positive Behavior

Support• Evidence-based

Interventions (e.g., Voyager, LLI, Rewards, CI/CO))

District Personnel Supports:SSTs IRTsPSTs

External PBS CoachesExternal RTI Coaches

Interventionists

District Supported PDe.g. IRT, Intervetionist

Tools for Problem-Solving

• RTI Pacing Guide• Implementation Rubric• Web-site with resources• Data Dashboard• Problem-solving Protocols

(8-step & 4-step)

Assessment and Data

• MAP (Screening)• AIMSweb (Screening & Progress Monitoring• Early Warning System• On-line surveys to examine MTSS

implementation efforts

On-Going Support: AIMSweb training for benchmarking teams SBLT RTI/MTSS training (Foundational Training)

District Supports for Multi-Tiered System of Supports(MTSS/RTI2)

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive PracticesUniversally Designed Instruction

SLD Criteria Communication PlanStakeholder 2012-13 2013-2014

Principals April 10

Interventionists May 10 Embedded in Interventionist PD

CC Teachers May 20 Embedded in CC Teacher PD

Psychologists/PSTs May 21 Embedded in Psychologists/PST PD

IRTs Embedded in IRT PD

SBLTs Embedded in Year 2 MTSS/RTI Training

Universal Screening(Academic and Behavior)

Well Below BenchmarkExamples:

System 44 Rewards Sentence Writing

Corrective ReadingIndividualized Check-In/Check-

Out

Below BenchmarkExamples:

VoyagerLeveled Literacy Intervention

Read 180 Rewards

Check-In/Check-Out

At Benchmark

Continue with High Quality Core Curriculum &

instruction

Examine integrity of core instruction

School Based Leadership Team (SBLT) Analyzes Data

Are 80% at benchmark?Subgroups?

No

Enter small group problem solving with grade level/instructional teams & consider standard protocol intervention options

Decision Making with School-Wide Screening


THE ROLE OF CC TEACHERS

118


119

CC Teacher Role is Critical!• Support awareness of instructional “best practices” throughout the system.• Support selection of “matched” interventions• Scientific-Research Based instruction/intervention (SRBI)• Communication/Coordination with general education.• Evidence of effectiveness of intervention

– Groups– Individuals

• Differential needs of subgroups• Effective Assessment Routines

– Screening and progress monitoring• Fidelity of instruction and intervention

– Training and coaching support provided– Feedback


120

Questions for CC Teachers• How are decisions made regarding what interventions for students

needing additional support?• What are current practices in establishing baseline?• What progress monitoring tools are being used?• How frequently is progress monitoring taking place?• How is progress monitoring being documented?• How is fidelity promoted? Documented?• What procedures are in place for communicating individual student

progress and with whom is the communication taking place?• How will student participation and performance be communicated to

teachers once a student is identified as SLD?• When a student does not meet SLD identification, what procedures are in

place to continue, review, revise the intervention?


121

Exit Activity: Building Self-Assessment and Planning

• Identify one or two priority actions needed before next year

• Identify top three priority actions for next year• Identify challenges and strategies for

addressing these• Complete exit card and hand in


122

USING THE DATA TOOL FOR GRAPHING

Addendum


123

Data Tool Practice

• Graphing Tool Activity Sheets• Graphing Tool can be downloaded at http://

sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ld

(Or one of us can load it for you)

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

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


124

To Use the Tool: 1. Enter the student’s name and grade information 2. Enter the area of target SLD/behavior the student is to increase (i.e., oral reading fluency) 3. Enter the name of the intervention 4. Enter the normative data for students of the same age at the 25th percentile of achievement. Include the fall, winter and spring benchmarks. 5. Enter the scores from the three probes administered to the student to establish the baseline (the baseline will calculate automatically). 6. Enter the baseline score in the box beneath the week that precedes the first week of progress monitoring data. For example, if the implementation of the intervention and collection of progress monitoring data began in week 7, enter the baseline in week 6. 7. Enter the progress monitoring data in subsequent weeks. It is important to enter it accurately into the spaces provided for corresponding instructional weeks so a reliable comparison can be made to the normative data line. 8. The graph will appear on the chart tab. 9. These steps should be repeated for each intervention.


125


126

DEFINITIONSAddendum


127

Adequate Fidelity

“…the intervention has been applied in a manner highly consistent with it’s design and was provided to the pupil at least 80% of the recommended number of weeks, sessions, and minutes per session.”• Data:

– Teacher self-report– Attendance and scheduling data– Observation– Training and support provided


128

Evidenced-Based

• “scientific, research-based interventions with substantial evidence of effectiveness through multiple outcome evaluations”


129

Scientific

• Scientific: – Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on

observation or experiment – Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the

stated hypothesis and justify the general conclusion – Relies on measurement or observational methods that

provide valid data across evaluators and observers, and across multiple measurements and observations

– Is accepted by a peer-reviewed or a panel of independent experts through comparatively rigorous, objective and scientific review = program has been scientifically validated.


130

Research-Based Program or Practice

• A program or instructional practice that has gone through rigorous research and has demonstrated a record of success.– there is reliable, trustworthy and valid evidence to suggest the

program or practice is effective. – The evidence supporting these practices or instruction should be

scientific research. • Evidence that a program contains substantial content and

practices that individually are research-based can be presented if the program has not been sufficiently validated

• Evidence of effective outcomes achieved locally can also bolster the case that the practice is “evidence-based”


131

Interventions

• Intervention– A systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve

learning or performance in specific areas of student need – Provided as part of general education; implemented by licensed general

education staff

• Intensive Interventions– Interventions used with an individual or small groups focusing on single or

small numbers of discrete skills with substantial numbers of instructional minutes in addition to those provided to all students.

Progress Monitoring

• Progress monitoring means a scientifically-based practice to assess student response to interventions

• Probe– Brief: The measure can be given quickly– Direct Measure: low inference observations during which

correct and incorrect student responses to real tasks are counted in a given time interval

– Multiple equal or nearly equal forms: alternate form reliability– Sensitive to small change in performance– Valid and Reliable: The measure is technically adequate



133

Rate of Progress

• Rate of progress during intervention means the slope of the trend line using least squares regression on the baseline and all subsequent data points during each intervention

PI 11.02 (11)

Intervention

• Definition: A systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of student need

• Provided as part of general education; implemented by licensed general education staff


aligning instruction/intervention with the wi sld rule changes: best practices for cc teachers mmsd...

Documents

cc teachers copyright

lack of confidence copyright

interventions support

value of sld rule

wi sld rule changes

participation data support

discrepancy models

cc teachers mmsd