1 / 23

Presentation at the Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Chicago, ILL. March 2, 2010

RTII in New Holland Elementary School: Making Data Driven Decisions Richard E. Hall, Ph.D. School Psychologist Eastern Lancaster County School Distr ict. Presentation at the Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Chicago, ILL. March 2, 2010. District Description.

hedya
Télécharger la présentation

Presentation at the Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Chicago, ILL. March 2, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RTII in New Holland Elementary School:Making Data Driven DecisionsRichard E. Hall, Ph.D. School PsychologistEastern Lancaster County School District Presentation at the Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Chicago, ILL. March 2, 2010

  2. District Description Student Population: 3161 • New Holland: 580 • Brecknock: 467 • Blue Ball: 600 • Garden Spot Middle School: 470 • Garden Spot High School: 1044 District Demographics • Percent Free and Lunch: 21% • Percent minority: 10% • Percent of Students with disabilities: 15% • Percent identified as SLD: 8%

  3. Description continued RTII Available Support Staff at the Elementary Level • Support Specialist: 6 • Title I Teachers: 7.5 • Learning Support Teachers: 4 • 13 Tutors: Spread over 3 buildings building • School Psychologists: 3 (1 at the elementary level) • Speech and Language Therapist: 2 • ESL: 2.5

  4. District Description continued Pennsylvania State System Of Assessment (PSSA) • Percent Proficient or Above PSSA Reading: 79% • Percent Proficient or Above PSSA Math: 85% History of RTI in the District • 1995 PA Instructional Support Team (IST) • 1997 Began using RTI data for SLD and ED eligibility • Full implementation 2006-07 at the elementary level • 2006 Blue Ball named NRCLD model RTI site • 2009 Application for PA RTII

  5. ELANCO RTII ModelTypes of Data used in the process • Universal Screening • DIBELS • 4Sight Reading • 4Sight Math • DRP • Star Math • Star Reading starting in 2010-11 school year • AIMSweb Math CBM Computation

  6. ELANCO RTII ModelTypes of Data used in the process • Diagnostic • DIBELS Error Analysis • CORE Phonics Survey • Star Math Diagnostic • ISEL and RIOT • Other as needed (school psychologist plays an active role in diagnostic assessments at Tier II and III

  7. ELANCO RTII ModelTypes of Data used in the process • Intervention Monitoring Data • DIBELS • AIMSweb • R-CBM • M-CBM • CWS • MAZE • Star Math Progress Monitoring • Star Reading Monitoring (2010-11) • Other as needed

  8. ELANCO RTII ModelTypes of Data used in the process • Frequency of Data Collection • Tier I Universal Screening data 3X/year • Tier II Progress Monitoring • All students at this Tier once per month • Selected students once a week • Tier III Progress Monitoring • All students at this Tier once weekly • Selected students twice weekly

  9. ELANCO RTII Model3 Tiers of Instruction and InterventionIntervention Examples (not exhaustive) • Tier I • Core Reading Houghton-Mifflin • Core Math Every Day Math • Houghton-Mifflin supplemental materials • Differentiated instruction • Tier II Standard Protocol • Horizons • Phonics for Reading • Math Stars • Precision Teaching Protocols • Tier III Standard Protocol • SRA Reading Mastery • Corrective Reading • Corrective Math • Connecting Math Concepts • Read Adapt Answer Comprehend (RAAC) • Wilson Reading • Quick Reading • Read Naturally • Precision Teaching • CWPT • Others

  10. ELANCO RTII Model3 Tiers of Instruction and Intervention • Tier I • Who: Classroom teacher • Time Reading: 90 minute Language Arts • Time Math: 60 minute Math • Tier II • Who: Classroom Teacher, Reading Specialist, Title I Tutors, Interventionists • Time: 90 minute (or 60 mins. Math) Core instruction + 30 mins. of additional intervention in small group • Tier III • Who: Classroom Teacher, Reading Specialists, Title I Tutors, Intervention Specialist, Special Education Teachers, Parents, others as needed. • Time: 120 minutes individualized and small group

  11. ELANCO RTII Model3 Tiers of Instruction and Intervention Teaming Process • Grade Level Teams Data Analysis • Meet monthly 9 time per year (Monthly) • Data Manager is the Building Principal • Data are prepared by Principal and RTII Interventionist • Focus is on grade level issues, goals and interventions • Tier II meetings • Meet 5 times per year • Data Managers are the principal, Title I coordinator and RTII Interventionist • Tier III meetings • Meet every 10 to 12 weeks, sometime more depending on # of cases • Data managers are principal, Interventionists, school psychologist • Data are prepared, graphed, etc. by RTII Interventionists

  12. ELANCO RTII ModelInstructional Decision Making Types of Data Used • DIBELS Benchmarks at each grade level • Advanced, Benchmark, Strategic, Intensive • PSSA/4Sight • Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic • AIMSweb norms • Tier I above the 25th percentile • Tier II 10th to 25th percentile • Tier III at or below the 10th percentile • DRP and other district developed assessments • Advanced, Proficient, Partially Proficient • Star Math • Advanced, Proficient, Intensive based on percentile rank

  13. ELANCO RTII ModelInstructional Decision Making Decisions Based on Data • Tier I • Students who score Advanced, Proficient, Benchmark, above the 30th percentile remain at Tier I • Tier II • If a student’s score(s) drops to Strategic (below the 30th percentile) they are considered for Tier II level Intervention. • Tier III • Below Basic, Intensive, Partially Proficient, at or below the 10th percentile.

  14. Data Decision Rule • Tier I: Students in Advanced, Proficient or Benchmark range. • Tier II: Students who score in the Strategic range may be considered for Tier II interventions. • Students at Tier II who score at Benchmark 3 consecutive times are move to Tier I transition • Tier II students who score 3 consecutive times in the intensive range are considered for Tier III • Tier III students who score 3 consecutive times in the strategic range move back to Tier II • Tier III students who continue to score Intensive, i.e. 10th percentile or below, may be considered for an eligibility assessment

  15. Special Education Eligibility To establish SLD, evaluation data gathered through the RTI process determines if the student is performing significantly below the level or standard of his or her peers. The evaluation team (MDT) should be able to answer, “yes” to 3 questions.

  16. Criteria for identifying SLD using RTI: Question 1 • Were there at least two phases of intensive interventions implemented in the general education curriculum with fidelity, which did not significantly affect the student’s achievement and does the evidence of the student’s limited responsiveness at Tier III reflect that he or she is learning at a rate significantly less that her or his peers? • The student’s ROI will not lead to minimum proficiency standards by the end of the school year (25th percentile) • The student did not attain grade level proficiency above the 10th percentile and could not be successfully move to Tier II.

  17. Criteria for identifying SLD using RTI: Question 2 Do RTI and other existing data (including observations) indicating significantly below level functioning? • CBM scores showing the student is performing at or below the 10 percentile of current grade level; • A standardized assessment standard score that is 82 or below, consistent with the test protocols (i.e., 10th Percentile or below); • CBM scores and other data demonstrate that the student’s median performance is below that of his or her grade-placement peers by a discrepancy ratio of at least 2.0 (the discrepancy ratio is calculated by dividing the peers’ median performance by the target student’s median performance); or • The student’s instructional performance level is at least two or more grade levels below her or his current grade placement as determined by CBM scores or standardized assessments of academic achievement?

  18. Criteria for identifying SLD using RTI: Question 3 Does the multidisciplinary team (MDT) believe the student requires resources that are not available in the general education setting, with or without accommodations, in order to participate or progress in the general education curriculum at a level equal to his or her peers? Evidence of this criterion would show that the student requires specially designed instruction or Tier III interventions for an extended period of time that is not available in the general education curriculum.

  19. Primary data used for eligibility decisions is CBM augmented with diagnostic measures and Standardized achievement tests • Limited use of ability measures • Future Direction • Continuing Focus on fidelity of instruction and intervention. • More use of ecological assessments • Whole class interventions • Use of data to determine class composition

  20. 2008-2009 • District Initiated Evaluations for SLD – 12 • Number Eligibility for Special Education – 12 • Hit rate – 100%

More Related