What is Response to Intervention (RTI)?

What is Response to Intervention (RTI)?

Things to Consider When Developing an RTI Evaluation Plan National Center on Response to Intervention National Center on Response to Intervention Session Agenda Rationale for RTI evaluation Defining RTI and the essential components of an RTI model Measuring fidelity of implementation Things to consider when evaluating RTI Ways to assess success indicators and examples of data National Center on Response to Intervention 2

Session Objectives Recognize why it is important to evaluate the RTI model and what the evaluation might tell you. Develop an understanding of the essential components of an RTI model and whether they are being implemented fully. Increase understanding of key considerations for developing an RTI evaluation plan. Increase awareness of available evaluation tools and resources for measuring fidelity and implementation.

Have a team discussion on success indicators and considerations for developing an evaluation plan. National Center on Response to Intervention 3 RATIONALE FOR AN RTI EVALUATION National Center on Response to Intervention 4 Why Evaluate RTI? Justify RTI Implementation to stakeholders Resources, training efforts, funding

Understand whether the essential components of RTI are being implemented with fidelity and refine the model as needed Assess the impact of the implementation of the RTI model or its components on student outcomes Empirically support statements about the effectiveness of RTI for stakeholders National Center on Response to Intervention 5 Why Evaluate RTI? Identify areas for improvement or targeted technical assistance Assess implementation integrity and fidelity of The RTI model RTI model components Implementation process

National Center on Response to Intervention 6 Key Evaluation Questions 1. How do I know whether my RTI model and the components of RTI are being implemented with fidelity? 2. How do I know if my RTI model is working and to what extent is it working? 3. If my RTI model is working, what will change for students, for schools, for districts? National Center on Response to Intervention 7 WHAT IS RTI?

National Center on Response to Intervention 8 Defining RTI Response to Intervention (RTI) integrates assessment and intervention within a school-wide, multilevel level prevention system to maximize student achievement and reduce behavior problems. (National Center on Response to Intervention) National Center on Response to Intervention 9 Defining RTI With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress,

provide evidence-based interventions, and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions based on a students responsiveness; and RTI may be used as part of the determination process for identifying students with specific learning disabilities or other disabilities. (National Center on Response to Intervention) National Center on Response to Intervention 10 RTI as a Preventive Framework RTI is a multi-level instructional framework aimed at improving outcomes for all students. RTI is preventive, and provides immediate support to students who are at risk for poor learning outcomes. RTI may be a component of a comprehensive evaluation for students with learning disabilities.

National Center on Response to Intervention 11 Essential Components of RTI Screening Progress Monitoring School-Wide, Multi-Level Prevention System Primary level Secondary level Tertiary level Data-based decision making for Instruction Evaluating effectiveness

Movement within the multi-level system Disability identification (in accordance with state law) National Center on Response to Intervention 12 Essential Components of RTI National Center on Response to Intervention 13 Screening PURPOSE: Identify students who are at risk of poor learning outcomes FOCUS: All students TOOLS: Brief assessments that are valid, are reliable, and demonstrate diagnostic accuracy for predicting learning or behavioral problems

TIMEFRAME: Administered more than one time per year (e.g., fall, winter, spring) National Center on Response to Intervention 14 THINK-PAIR-SHARE How are you implementing screening in your RTI model? National Center on Response to Intervention 15 Progress Monitoring PURPOSE: Monitor students response to primary, secondary, or tertiary instruction to estimate rates of improvement, identify students who are not demonstrating adequate progress, and compare the efficacy of different forms of instruction

FOCUS: Students identified through screening as at risk for poor learning outcomes TOOLS: Brief assessments that are valid, reliable, and evidence based TIMEFRAME: Students are assessed at regular intervals (e.g., weekly, biweekly, or monthly) National Center on Response to Intervention 16 THINK-PAIR-SHARE How are you implementing progress monitoring in your RTI model? National Center on Response to Intervention 17 Multi-Level Prevention System

~5% Primary level: School-wide/classroom instruction for all students, including differentiated instruction Tertiary level: specialized individualized instruction for students with intensive needs ~15% Secondary level: supplemental group instruction for students with at-risk response to primary level

~80% of Students National Center on Response to Intervention 18 Changing the Intensity and Nature of Instruction Intervention Duration Frequency Interventionist Group size National Center on Response to Intervention 19 THINK-PAIR-SHARE

What does your multi-level prevention system look like? Are you fully implementing all three levels? National Center on Response to Intervention 20 Data-Based Decision Making: The Basics Analyze data at all levels of RTI implementation (e.g., state, district, school, grade level) and all levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, or tertiary). Establish routines and procedures for making decisions. Set explicit decision rules for assessing student progress (e.g., state and district benchmarks, level, and/or rate). Use data to compare and contrast the adequacy of the core curriculum and the effectiveness of different instructional and behavioral strategies. National Center on Response to Intervention

21 Data-Based Decision Making: Types of Decisions Instruction Evaluate effectiveness Movement within the multi-level prevention system Disability identification (in accordance with state law) National Center on Response to Intervention 22 THINK-PAIR-SHARE How are you using data to make decisions within your RTI model? Are there data teams? Do you have explicit decision rules?

Are there routines and procedures in place for collecting and reviewing data? National Center on Response to Intervention 23 Essential Components of RTI National Center on Response to Intervention 24 ASSESSING FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION National Center on Response to Intervention

25 What Is Fidelity of Implementation? National Center on Response to Intervention 26 Indicators of Successful Implementation Fidelity of implementation of essential components Effectiveness of the scale-up process Impact of RTI on service delivery (e.g., staff attitudes, delivery of instruction and supplemental supports, or design of instructional supports) National Center on Response to Intervention 27

Monitor Fidelity Ways to Measure Fidelity Self-report data Observation Logs, lesson plans, and student work National Center on Response to Intervention 28 Self-Report Data May provide an indicator of teacher knowledge, context of implementation Types Questionnaires

Surveys Interviews Considerations Often unreliable when used alone Efficient National Center on Response to Intervention 29

Observation Types Spot checks Peer or administrator observations Peer coaching Item-by-item checklists of lesson components/rubrics Considerations

Develop checklists of critical implementation components Record and listen to sessions at random Least efficient but most reliable National Center on Response to Intervention 30 Logs, Lesson Plans, Student Work Allows evaluation of what was done Content covered Student progress Considerations Moderately efficient

Moderately reliable Less information about delivery, dosage, adherence to scripts or lesson components (if applicable) National Center on Response to Intervention 31 Measuring Fidelity Handout Work with your team to A. Choose an essential component to focus on during this activity. B. Fill out the handout and discuss the last two columns relating to the essential component your team selected: What are you currently doing to measure fidelity? What can you implement to measure fidelity? National Center on Response to Intervention 32

Examples of Measures and Tools for Evaluating Implementation of RTI Components and the RTI Process Fidelity-of-implementation forms Self-assessment rubrics Interview protocols Product review forms Free RTI surveys and checklists Direct observation instructions or rubrics National Center on Response to Intervention 33 NCRTI Integrity Rubric and Worksheet Organized according to the essential components of RTI as identified by the NCRTI: Screening, progress monitoring, multi-level prevention

system, data-based decision making Includes overarching factors: Staff qualification, cultural and linguistic competence, leadership, communication and involvement of parents, prevention focus National Center on Response to Intervention 34 NCRTI Integrity Rubric Intended for use by individuals responsible for monitoring school-level fidelity of RTI implementation or as a measure of self-assessment. Provides descriptions of three levels of potential ratings (1, 3, or 5) across each factor. National Center on Response to Intervention

35 National Center on Response to Intervention Insufficient evidence that the screening tools are reliable; or that correlations between the instruments and valued outcomes are strong; or that predictions of risk status are accurate. National Center on Response to Intervention 37 NCRTI Integrity Framework Worksheet Intended for use by RTI coordinators or evaluators with extensive RTI experience

Provides space to develop a narrative rationale for each rating Data collected through interviews or site visits National Center on Response to Intervention 38 National Center on Response to Intervention 39 1. Screening Tools National Center on Response to Intervention What tools do you use for universal screening?

When your school selected the screening tool(s), how much attention was paid to the evidence from the vendor regarding the validity, reliability, and accuracy of the tool? Does your school have documentation from the vendor that these tools have been shown to be valid, reliable and accurate (including with sub-groups)? Do you have reasons to believe that the screening tools(s) that you use may have issues with validity, reliability, or accuracy (including with sub-groups)? If so, please explain. 40 RTI State Database (http://state.rti4success.org/) National Center on Response to Intervention 41

ExampleColorados RTI Implementation Rubric http://www.cde.state.co.us/rti/ National Center on Response to Intervention 42 ExampleConnecticuts Evaluation of Districts RTI Procedures: Self-Assessment http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/word_docs/cali/srbi_self_assessment_csde_october_2008.doc National Center on Response to Intervention 43 ExampleConnecticuts Evaluation of Districts RTI Procedures: Interview

Questions May Include What is the purpose of your team? What are the activities of the team? What is the expectation of the team? How often do you meet? How long is the meeting? How is the agenda for the meeting determined? How are decisions determined? How are strategies for student improvement determined? How are they evaluated? How does the data team influence classroom/schoolwide practice (e.g., coaching teachers, support personnel)? Give an example of how the data team supports improvement in student outcomes (e.g., academic or behavioral)? http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/word_docs/cali/srbi_observation_interview_protocol_october_2008.doc Nationalwas Center on . This document developed in 2008.

Response to Intervention 44 ExampleConnecticuts Evaluation of Districts RTI Procedures: Permanent Product Review http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/word_docs/curriculum/cali/assessment_inventory.doc National Center on Response to Intervention 45 ExampleConnecticuts Evaluation of Districts RTI Procedures: Building/Classroom Tour The observer would write down evidence of practice, notes, or comments for each these key areas. The observer also may

record the readiness level (beginning, developing, proficient, or exemplary) observed for each of these key areas. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/word_docs/cali/srbi_observation_interview_protocol_october_2008.doc National Center on Response to Intervention 46 ExampleConnecticuts Evaluation of Districts RTI Procedures: Data Team Observation In this example, observers would check the box if they saw evidence of the key area during the observation period.

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/word_docs/cali/srbi_observation_interview_protocol_october_2008.doc National Center on Response to Intervention 47 ExampleDelawares District RTI Planning Guide http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/staff/profdev/rti_files/District%20RTI%20Planning%20Guide.doc National Center on Response to Intervention 48 CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION PLAN National Center on Response to Intervention 49

Things to Consider Data collection Staffing and expertise Funding Evaluation tools Timeframe Data analysis Sharing of results National Center on Response to Intervention 50 Examples of Types of Data Compliance with state and federal regulations Components of the RTI process (i.e., screening and progress monitoring data) Fidelity of implementation Effectiveness of RTI (student outcome measures) Financial impact of RTI

National Center on Response to Intervention 51 Data Collection: Key Questions What data do we need to collect? Can we use existing data? If so, what sources? Do we need to collect additional data? If so, how will we collect the data? Can we use similar data sources across all sites? National Center on Response to Intervention 52 Data Collection: Methods Consistency across schools data reporting systems

and data collected Use a common language across all schools Collect consistent data across schools Use consistent cut scores and benchmarks Multi-method/multi-measure assessment is preferred National Center on Response to Intervention 53 Data Collection: Methods Evaluation Success Type of Question Indicators Data Needed Submission Timeframe or Collection of Data

Methods Collection What is it we want to know? How will the data be collected and analyzed? What is an indicator of what we want to know? National Center on Response to Intervention

What type of data will provide information for the success indicator? What is the timeframe for data collection? 54 Staffing and Expertise Who will oversee the evaluation process? Who will be responsible for collecting and analyzing data? Do we have sufficient internal staff expertise to design and conduct an evaluation?

Do we need external expertise? What is available? National Center on Response to Intervention 55 Funding What funding resources are available to support the ongoing evaluation of RTI? What funding is available to support knowledge development or engage experts? What funding is available to address any necessary changes to the RTI process? National Center on Response to Intervention 56 Evaluation Tools

What tools are currently available? Can we use existing tools? Do we need to adapt or develop new tools? What resources do we have for analyzing and reporting the results? Do we have sufficient training on how to use the tools and reporting information we select? Note: This will be covered further in later sections of the presentation National Center on Response to Intervention 57 Timeframe How much time is needed to plan for evaluation? When will data collection begin? Will multiple years or a single year of data be used for analysis? When will data analysis occur (single time point or multiple time points) and when will the results be reviewed?

National Center on Response to Intervention 58 Data Analysis How will we aggregate data (across students, classes, grades, schools)? Do we have consistent benchmarks (across grades, within the district)? How many years of data will we consider? Will we use a data system to support analysis? If so, which one? National Center on Response to Intervention 59 Sharing of Results

How will we report the results? How will we disseminate the results and next steps? Parents School board Teachers Administration School staff Others National Center on Response to Intervention 60 THINK-PAIR-SHARE

How will we share the results of our evaluation, or how do we currently share our evaluation data? What methods will/do we use? Who will be/is our target audience? Will /do we use different methods for different audiences? National Center on Response to Intervention 61 Reflection: Guiding Questions for Evaluation What do we want to know? What data do we have that we can use to evaluate (e.g., fidelity data, student outcome data)? Do we need to collect additional data? If so, what type? National Center on Response to Intervention

62 ASSESSING STUDENT, SCHOOL, DISTRICT OUTCOMES National Center on Response to Intervention 63 Different Levels or Types of Analysis Individuals, Grades, Schools, Districts Aggregation of data o Mean (average) across students, grades, schools o Range (spread) of scores from low to high National Center on Response to Intervention 64

Different Levels or Types of Analysis Single year or across multiple years of implementation Comparing cohorts of students Schools implementing RTI ,or comparison of schools implementing RTI with schools not implementing RTI National Center on Response to Intervention 65 Data Systems Published data systems Pros: Data can be accessed by multiple users; many systems provide easy-to-interpret printouts Cons: Cost; lack of knowledge on how to use the system Excel spreadsheet

Pros: No cost; accessible; easy to use for basic analyses Cons: Access to data is often limited to a few members; lack of skills in creating graphs and analyzing data National Center on Response to Intervention 66 Overarching Indicators of Success All measures of success are related to data-based decision making, but two common indicators of interest are Student outcomes (e.g., scores on end-of-year assessments, number of office referrals)

Patterns of special education referral National Center on Response to Intervention 67 Student Outcomes Student outcomes can include State assessments Discipline/behavioral referrals Graduation rates

Retention rates Dropout rates The percentage of students achieving, nearly meeting, or exceeding standards on outcome measures should increase across years. National Center on Response to Intervention 68 Ways to Look at Changes in Student Outcomes 1. Changes in student outcomes by cohort across multiple years of RTI Implementation 2. Comparison of student outcomes for schools implementing RTI and schools not implementing RTI National Center on Response to Intervention

69 Example 1Comparison of Cohorts Across Years in Grades 35 Percentage of Students 80% 71% 70% 60% 50% 40% 2008 09 60% 57% 56% 75%

60% 57% 55% 45% 40% 45% 55% 43% 29% 30% 44%

43% 40% 25% 20% 10% 0% Proficient Not Proficient Grade 3 National Center on Response to Intervention Proficient Not Proficient Grade 4 Proficient Not Proficient

Grade 5 70 THINK-PAIR-SHARE National Center on Response to Intervention 70% Percentage of Students What does the graph tell you about student achievement in the following grades? What trends do you see for students in third grade? What

about fifth grade? 80% 60% 71% 60% 50% 45% 40% 30% 200809 200910 201011 75% 55%

40% 29% 57% 45% 60% 57% 56% 55% 43% 44% 40% 43% 25%

20% 10% 0% nt nt ie ie c c fi ofi ro Pr P t No Grade 3 nt nt

ie ie c c fi ofi ro Pr P t No Grade 4 nt nt ie ie c c fi ofi

ro Pr P t No Grade 5 71 Example 2Comparison of Proficiency on State Assessment Across Schools Percentage of Students 80% 200809 200910 201011 75%

70% 60% 50% 50% 48% 53% 57% 52% 50% 47% 45% 55% 43% 40% 30% 25%

20% 10% 0% ComparisonNot Schools Proficient Proficient National Center on Response to Intervention Proficient RTI Schools Not Proficient 72 THINK-PAIR-SHARE 80% 70% Percentage of Students

What does the graph tell you about student proficiency at schools implementing RTI in comparison to those not implementing RTI? 75% 60% 50% 53% 52% 50% 50% 48% 47%

57% 45% 200809 200910 201011 55% 43% 40% 30% 25% 20% 10% 0% National Center on Response to Intervention

Comparison Schools Proficient Not Proficient RTI Schools Proficient Not Proficient 73 Evaluation Plan Graphic Organizer Work with your team to fill out section 1 of the graphic organizer, focusing on these questions: What are you currently doing to evaluate student outcome measures? What processes can you implement to evaluate student outcome measures? National Center on Response to Intervention

74 Patterns of Special Education Referrals Fewer inappropriate referrals to special education Efficiency of evaluation Accuracy of referrals National Center on Response to Intervention 75 Disability Identification To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to a lack of appropriate instruction

in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation, what is described in 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.306: Data demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel. Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals reflect formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the childs parents. (www.idea.ed.gov) National Center on Response to Intervention 76 State Regulations for Disability Identification States have different regulations for referrals for disability identification. Contact the State Department of Education for additional information.

National Center on Response to Intervention 77 Evaluation Plan Graphic Organizer Work with your team to fill out section 2 of the graphic organizer, focusing on these questions: What are you currently doing to evaluate patterns of special education referrals? What additional information do you need to evaluate patterns of special education referrals? National Center on Response to Intervention 78 Indicators of Success Using Screening Data Identifying changes in

the number of students identified as at risk or not at risk based on screening benchmarks National Center on Response to Intervention 79 Indicators of Success: Using Screening Data Percentage of students achieving the benchmark should increase over the year. Example: Oral Reading Fluency benchmarks (AIMSweb, DIBELS, local norms) Percentage of students achieving benchmark across

years should increase toward ceiling levels. The goal is to have at least 80% of students identified as not at risk National Center on Response to Intervention 80 Why ~80%? The goal of at least 80% is based on the public health model. This goal may not apply to all schools For example, schools with populations that are highly transient, high poverty, and/or have high percentages of English language learners (ELLs) These schools should still have high expectations for their students While they may use baseline data as starting points they should strive for the goal of 80% National Center on

Response to Intervention 81 Example: Establishing Goals for Benchmark at School A A small urban community, high poverty, failing school When an RTI model was introduced into that school First universal screening revealed that 16% of students in the early grades met benchmark; 6070% did not. Rather than establish an unrealistic expectation that at least 80% of students reach benchmark over the course of several years, they established a goal of 50% at benchmark in year 1, and 60% at benchmark in year 2. While the school did not reach 80% at benchmark , it improved over a three-year period to about 55% at low risk and only 20% at risk. National Center on Response to Intervention 82

Ways to Look at Changes Using Screening Data 1. Changes in risk level aggregated across schools within the same school year (need a consistent cut score across the schools) a) Mean b) Range 2. Changes in risk level by cohort across multiple years of RTI implementation 3. Comparison of risk-level changes for schools implementing RTI and schools not implementing RTI National Center on Response to Intervention 83 Example 1aAverage Within the Same Year Risk Level: Aggregated Mean for Seven Schools Across One Year

90% Percentage of Students 80% Not at risk 84% 77% 73% Column1 70% 60% 50% 40% 27% 30%

23% 16% 20% 10% 0% Fall Winter Spring Grade 1Word Identification Fluency (WIF) National Center on Response to Intervention 84

THINK-PAIR-SHARE National Center on Response to Intervention 70% Percentage of Students What does the graph tell you about second graders progress in these 7 elementary schools? What questions might you raise based on the data? 60%

50% 40% At risk Not at risk 30% 20% 10% 0% Fall Winter Spring Grade 2 Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) 85

Example 1bRange Within the Same Year Aggregated Range for Students Identified as Not at Risk Across Five Schools in One Year 100% 94% 90% 80% 85% 74%

Percentage of Students 70% 60% 51% 50% 40% 30% 29% 23% 20% 10% 0% Fall

Winter Spring Grade 1Word Identification Fluency National Center on Response to Intervention 86 Example 1bRange Within the Same Year 100% Aggregated Range for Students Identified as at Risk Across Five Schools in One Year Percentage of Students 90% 80% 70%

60% 50% 40% 30% 37% 31% 20% 10% 3% 3% Fall Winter 0%

10% 0% Spring Grade 1Word Identification Fluency Grade 1-WIF National Center on Response to Intervention Grade 2- ORF 87 Example 2Comparison of Cohorts Across Years in the Same Grade Percentage of Students Percentage of First- and Second-Grade Students Identified as at Risk or Not at Risk Across Three Years 100%

90% 90% 84% 80% 74% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not at Risk Spring 2008 68% 80% Spring 2009 Spring 2010

32% 26% 16% 26% 20% 10% At Risk Grade 1Word Identification Fluency National Center on Response to Intervention 74% Not at Risk

At Risk Grade 2Oral Reading Fluency 88 Example 3Comparison Across Schools and Years Percentage of First-Grade Students Identified as at Risk or Not at Risk on the Word Identification Fluency Screener Across Schools Implementing and Not Implementing RTI for Three Years 70% Percentage of Students What does the graph say about the change in risk level across years of RTI implementation

for schools implementing RTI? 53% 50% 40% 30% 200809 45% 43% 200910 36% 201011 26%

20% 18% 14% 17% 12% 10% 0% At Risk Not at Risk Comparison Schools National Center on Response to Intervention 60% 55%

59% 60% At Risk Not at Risk RTI Schools 89 Evaluation Plan Graphic Organizer Work with your team to fill out section 3 of the graphic organizer, focusing on these questions: What are you currently doing to evaluate changes in student risk levels using screening data? What can you implement to evaluate changes in student risk levels using screening data? National Center on

Response to Intervention 90 Indicators of Success Using Progress Monitoring Data Determine if students are making enough progress within prevention levels to close the gap National Center on Response to Intervention 91 Movement Within Levels: Using Progress Monitoring Data Rate of Improvement (ROI)

Typical ROI (National Norm) Targeted ROI (Goal) Attained ROI (Actual) National Center on Response to Intervention 92 Example: National Norms or Typical ROI for Weekly Improvement Grade Reading Slope Computation CBMSlope for Digits Correct Concepts and Applications CBM

Slope for Points 1 1.8 (WIF) .35 No data available 2 1.5 (PRF) .30 .40 3 1.0 (PRF)

.30 .60 4 .40 (Maze) .70 .70 5 .40 (Maze) .70 .70

6 .40 (Maze) .40 .70 Note: These figures may change with further RTI research and are specific to one assessment tool. National Center on Response to Intervention 93 Ways to Look at Movement Within Levels of Prevention 1. Comparisons of typical, targeted, and attained ROI for a single student a) Not closing the gap b) Closing the gap

2. Aggregated data comparing targeted and attained ROI by grade level for students in a single school National Center on Response to Intervention 94 Example 1aStudent Not Closing the Gap (Actual and Targeted ROI) Words Read Correctly Problems Correct in 7 Minutes 30 25 20 X

15 10 X Targeted ROI/goal line X X 5 Actual ROI/trend line 0 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 Weeks of Instruction National Center on Response to Intervention 95 W o r d s R e a d C o r r e c tly Example 1bStudent Closing the Gap (Actual and Targeted ROI) Actual ROI/trend line X 30 X

25 20 X Targeted ROI/ goal line 15 10 X 5 0 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 Weeks of Instruction National Center on Response to Intervention 96 Rate of Improvement Example 2Targeted Versus Attained Levels of Progress Monitoring for Students at Secondary Prevention 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.66 1.5 1.14 National Center on Response to Intervention 1.25 Typical Targeted Attained 97 THINK-PAIR-SHARE

Rate of Improvement 2.1 2.07 2.05 2 Typical 1.95 Targeted 1.9 Attained 1.85 1.8 1.8 1.75 1.7 1.65 Grade 1Word Identification Fluency National Center on Response to Intervention

Think about the data for firstgrade students. The typical ROI for first-grade students is 1.8. How are the students in first grade doing? What does this say about the secondary model for first grade? 98 Evaluation Plan Graphic Organizer Work with your team to fill out section 4 of the graphic organizer, focusing on these questions: What are you currently doing to evaluate student progress within prevention levels? What processes can you implement to evaluate student progress within prevention levels? National Center on

Response to Intervention 99 Indicators of Success Using Multi-Level Prevention System Data Movement between prevention levels Movement to a higher level of intensity Movement to a lower level of intensity No movement National Center on Response to Intervention 100

Change Within the Year Change in the level of intensity. Reflects growth in desired direction. Assume a general similarity in definition of levels of intensity. Uses multiple measures (not single metric). National Center on Response to Intervention 101 Types of Changes May need to look primarily at changes from Primary to Secondary Secondary to Tertiary Secondary to Primary Tertiary to Secondary Tertiary to Primary No movement from Secondary

National Center on Response to Intervention 102 Example of an Effective RTI Model National Center on Response to Intervention 103 Example of an Ineffective RTI Model National Center on Response to Intervention 104 Ways to Look at Movement Between Levels of Prevention

1. Overall changes in the percentage of students within each level across the year 2. Percentage of students moving from a higher to lower level of intensity or lower to higher level of intensity a) Individual school b) Aggregated across schools National Center on Response to Intervention 105 Example 1Percentage of Students by Level at School A (Fall to Spring) Percentage of students 90% 79% 80%

70% 60% Fall Spring 61% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 15% 6%

10% 0% 14% Only Primary National Center on Response to Intervention Secondary Tertiary 106 Percentage of Students Example 2aChanges Between Levels for First Graders in School A (Fall to Winter) 45.00%

40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Moved from less intensive to more intensive 42.11% 28.57% Moved from more intensive

to less intensive 14.29% 6.67% National Center on Response to Intervention 5.26% 107 Example 2bChanges Between Levels Across RTI Sites (Fall to Winter) Percentage of Students 25% 20% 15%

Moved from less intensive to more intensive 15% 23% Moved from more intensive to less intensive 13% 10% 5% 5% 0%

National Center on Response to Intervention 108 Evaluation Plan Graphic Organizer Work with your team to fill out section 5 of the graphic organizer, focusing on these questions: What are you currently doing to evaluate movement of students between levels of prevention? What processes can you implement to evaluate movement of students between levels of prevention? National Center on Response to Intervention 109 Guiding Questions Handout

As a team, come to a consensus on the following guiding questions. What do we want to know (e.g., evaluation questions)? What is an indicator of what we want to know (e.g., success indicators)? What type of data do we need to collect (e.g., format, existing or new)? How will it be submitted or collected (e.g., by whom, data system use)? How frequently will we collect this data? When will we collect and analyze?

Are there any potential challenges or concerns? What fidelity data do we already have? Do we need to adjust our process to make future evaluation efforts more successful? If so, what changes do we need to make? National Center on Response to Intervention 110 Review Activity 1. What type of data analysis would you use to find out if

a) Your students are making adequate progress within a prevention level? b) Schools that are implementing RTI are outperforming schools that are not implementing RTI? c) Your RTI model is working? 2. Why is fidelity important? 3. Provide three examples of data that can be used in an RTI evaluation. National Center on Response to Intervention

111 Closing Good data in, good data out Evaluation plans help you understand whether your RTI model is working, and should include Measures of fidelity Measures of student, school, and district success There are multiple ways to evaluate your RTI model and analyze the data. Developing an evaluation plan is important. National Center on Response to Intervention 112 Questions? National Center on Response to Intervention www.rti4success.org

National Center on Response to Intervention National Center on Response to Intervention This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Grant No. H326E070004. Grace Zamora Durn and Tina Diamond served as the OSEP project officers. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. This product is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: www.rti4success.org. National Center on Response to Intervention 114

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Curriculum Flow Graphics: Do More With Less

    Curriculum Flow Graphics: Do More With Less

    Meta-moment: Thinking about student learning. 1 minute "It is not an instrument or an event, but a collection of practices with a common feature: they all lead to some action that improves learning." 7 Strategies for Formative Assessment (Chappuis, 2009).
  • Présentation PowerPoint

    Présentation PowerPoint

    1.1 OH&S Act and Regulation Set out in detail employer duties respecting: Labels . Material safety data sheet, and. Workers training (all provinces and territories based their WHMIS on the same model to promote consistency across Canada)
  • DNA/Genetics Study Guide - Avon Schools

    DNA/Genetics Study Guide - Avon Schools

    DNA/Genetics Study Guide. DNA/Genetics Packet. DNA/Genetics Packet. Another name for trait would be . Physical characteristics . Name two traits that giraffes have . Colors / patterns / long necks / long legs. Define gene . A section of DNA...
  • Lecture 1: Course Introduction and Overview

    Lecture 1: Course Introduction and Overview

    Connect it to server (host:port) write request. read response. Close Client Socket. Create Server Socket. Bind it to an Address (host:port) Listen for Connection. Accept connection. read request. write response. Close Connection Socket. Close Server Socket. Connection Socket. child. Close...
  • Curriculum Institute 2002 - CMC3 California Mathematics ...

    Curriculum Institute 2002 - CMC3 California Mathematics ...

    CAN, IMPAC, LDTP, C-ID SB1440 Transfer associate degrees TMC and course approval Senate Input C-ID, FDRG, DIG Student - More uniformity, Out in 60 units Degree Approval - Course Approval www.c-id.net Michelle Pilati, President, Academic Senate CMC3 Fall Conference, December...
  • Part 5c: Addition - UMass Amherst

    Part 5c: Addition - UMass Amherst

    For 5 operands - still 3 levels Number of Levels in a CSA Tree for k operands Example: k=12 - 5 levels - delay of 5TCSA instead of 10TCSA in a linear cascade of 10 CSAs Most Economical Implementation (Fewer...
  • Presentación de PowerPoint - WordPress.com

    Presentación de PowerPoint - WordPress.com

    Así en 1711 Newton introdujo la fórmula de interpolación de diferencias finitas de una función f(x); fórmula extendida por Taylor al caso de infinitos términos bajo ciertas restricciones, utilizando de forma paralela el cálculo diferencial y el cálculo en diferencias...
  • Writing an Analytical Essay

    Writing an Analytical Essay

    Writing an Analytical Essay about a Literary Work. Makes an argument: You are arguing that your perspective—an interpretation, judgment, evaluation of the literature—is a valid one. Proves a thesis: You must have a specific, detailed thesis statement that reveals your...