Setting Individual Student RTI Academic Goals Using Research Norms

1. RTI Data Challenge: Setting Individual RTI Academic Goals Using Research Norms for Students Receiving ‘Off-Level’ Interventions Source: Shapiro, E. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress-monitoring monitoring goals for academic skill improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 141-157). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

2. Setting Individual Student RTI Academic Goals Using Research Norms To set a goal for student academic performance, four elements are needed: • The student’s baseline academic performance. Prior to starting the intervention, the teacher calculates baseline performance by assessing the target student several times with the academic measure that will be used to measure that student’s progress once the intervention begins. • Estimate of ‘typical’ peer performance. The teacher has a reliable estimate of expected or typical peer performance on the academic measure that will be used to measure the target student’s progress.

3. Setting Individual Student RTI Academic Goals Using Research Norms To set a goal for student academic performance, four elements are needed (cont.): • Estimate of expected weekly progress. The teacher selects a rate of weekly academic progress that the target student is expected to attain if the intervention is successful. • Number of weeks for the intervention trial. The teacher decides on how many weeks the RTI intervention will last, as the cumulative, final academic goal can be calculated only when the entire timespan of the intervention is known.

4. How to Set a Goal for an ‘Off-Level’ Intervention • Comparing Student Performance to Benchmarks and Flagging Extreme Discrepancies. The student is administered reading fluency probes equivalent to his or her current grade placement and the results are compared to peer norms. If the student falls significantly below the level of peers, he or she may need additional assessment to determine whether the student is to receive intervention and assessment ‘off grade level’.

5. Example of Progress-Monitoring Off-Level: Randy In January, Mrs. Chandler, a 4th-grade teacher, receives her classwide reading fluency screening results. She notes that a student who has recently transferred to her classroom, Randy, performed at 35 Words Read Correct (WRC) on the 1-minute AIMSweb Grade 4 fluency probes. Mrs. Chandler consults AIMSweb reading-fluency research norms and finds that a reasonable minimum reading rate for students by winter of grade 4 (25th percentile) is 89 WRC.

6. AIMSweb Norms: ‘Typical’ reader (25th percentile) in Gr 4 at mid-year (winter norms): 89 WRC Example of Progress-Monitoring Off-Level: Randy Target Student Randy: 35 WRC Conclusion: Randy’s grade-level performance is in the ‘frustration’ range. He requires a Survey-Level Assessment to find his optimal ‘instructional’ level. Source: AIMSweb® Growth Table Reading-Curriculum Based Measurement: Multi-Year Aggregate: 2006-2007 School Year

7. How to Set a Goal for an ‘Off-Level’ Intervention • Conducting a Survey Level Assessment (SLA). For students with large discrepancies when compared to benchmarks, the teacher conducts a SLA to determine the student’s optimal level for supplemental intervention and progress-monitoring. • The teacher administers AIMSweb reading probes from successively earlier grade levels and compares the student’s performance to the benchmark norms for that grade level. • The student’s ‘instructional’ level for intervention is the first grade level in which his reading-fluency rate falls at or above the 25th percentile according to the benchmark norms.

8. Example of Progress-Monitoring Off-Level: Randy Because Randy’s reading fluency rate is so far below the grade-level norms (a gap of 54 WRC), his teacher decides to conduct a Survey Level Assessment to find the student’s optimal grade level placement for supplemental reading instruction.

9. Example of Progress-Monitoring Off-Level: Randy On Grade 3-level probes, Randy attains a median score of 48 WRC. The AIMSweb winter norm (25th percentile) for a 3rd grade student is 69 WRC. The student is still in the ‘frustration’ range and the Survey Level Assessment continues. On Grade 2-level probes, Randy attains a median score of 64 WRC. The AIMSweb winter norm (25th percentile) for a 2nd grade student is 53 WRC. The student is now in the ‘instructional’ range and the Survey Level Assessment ends. Survey Level Assessment. The teacher conducts a Survey Level Assessment with Randy, assessing him using CBM reading fluency probes from successively earlier grades until he performs at or above the 25th percentile according to the AIMSweb norms. Source: AIMSweb® Growth Table Reading-Curriculum Based Measurement: Multi-Year Aggregate: 2006-2007 School Year

10. How to Set a Goal for an ‘Off-Level’ Intervention • Selecting a Progress-Monitoring Goal. To set a progress-monitoring goal, the teacher looks up the benchmark WRC for the 50th percentile at the student’s off-level ‘instructional’ grade level previously determined through the Survey Level Assessment.

11. Example of Progress-Monitoring Off-Level: Randy Goal-Setting. To find the progress-monitoring goal for Randy, his teacher looks up the benchmark WRC for the 50th percentile at Grade 2 (his off-level ‘instructional’ grade level)—which is 79 WRC.This becomes the progress-monitoring goal for the student. Source: AIMSweb® Growth Table Reading-Curriculum Based Measurement: Multi-Year Aggregate: 2006-2007 School Year

12. How to Set a Goal for an ‘Off-Level’ Intervention • Translating a Progress-Monitoring Goal into Weekly Increments. The teacher’s final task before starting the progress-monitoring is to translate the student’s ultimate intervention goal into ‘ambitious but realistic’ weekly increments. One useful method for determining weekly growth rates is to start with research-derived growth norms and to then use a ‘multiplier’ to make the expected rate of weekly growth more ambitious.

13. How to Set a Goal for an ‘Off-Level’ Intervention • Translating a Progress-Monitoring Goal into Weekly Increments. (Cont.) • The teacher first looks up the average rate of weekly student growth supplied in the research norms. (NOTE: If available, a good rule of thumb is to use the growth norms for the 50th percentile at the ‘off-level’ grade at which the student is receiving intervention and being monitored.) • The teacher then multiplies this grade norm for weekly growth by a figure between 1.5 and 2.0 (Shapiro, 2008). Because the original weekly growth rate represents a typical rate student improvement, using this multiplier to increase the target student’s weekly growth estimate is intended accelerate learning and close the gap separating that student from peers.

14. Example of Progress-Monitoring Off-Level: Randy Randy’s ultimate goal is 79 WRC (the 50th percentile norm for grade 2). During the Survey Level Assessment, Randy was found to read 64 WRC at the 2nd grade level. There is a 15-WRC gap to be closed to get Randy to his goal. At 2 additional WRC per week on intervention, Randy should close the gap within about 8 instructional weeks. Determining Weekly Rate of Improvement (ROI). Randy is to be monitored on intervention at grade 2. The teacher finds—according to AIMSweb norms—that a typical student in Grade 2 (at the 50th percentile) has a rate of improvement of 1.1 WRC per week. She multiplies the 1.1 WRC figure by 1.8 (teacher judgment) to obtain a weekly growth goal for Randy of about 2.0 additional WRCs. Source: AIMSweb® Growth Table Reading-Curriculum Based Measurement: Multi-Year Aggregate: 2006-2007 School Year

15. How to Set a Goal for an ‘Off-Level’ Intervention • Advancing the Student to Higher Grade Levels for Intervention and Progress-Monitoring The teacher monitors the student’s growth in reading fluency at least once per week (twice per week is ideal). • When the student’s reading fluency exceeds the 50th percentile in Words Read Correct for his or her ‘off-level’ grade, the teacher reassesses the student’s reading fluency using AIMSweb materials at the next higher grade. • If the student performs at or above the 25th percentile on probes from that next grade level, the teacher advances the student and begins to monitor at the higher grade level. • The process repeats until the student eventually closes the gap with peers and is being monitored at grade of placement.

16. Example of Progress-Monitoring Off-Level: Randy Advancing the Student to Higher Grade Levels (Cont.). So Mrs. Chandler assesses Randy on AIMSweb reading fluency probes for Grade 3 and finds that he reads on average 72 WRC —exceeding the Grade 3 25th percentile cut-off of 69 WRC. Therefore, Randy is advanced to Grade 3 progress-monitoring and his intervention materials are adjusted accordingly. Advancing the Student to Higher Grade Levels of Progress-Monitoring. His teacher, Ms. Chandler, notes that after 7 weeks of intervention, Randy is now reading 82 WRC—exceeding the 79 WRC for the 50th percentile of students in Grade 2 (winter norms). Source: AIMSweb® Growth Table Reading-Curriculum Based Measurement: Multi-Year Aggregate: 2006-2007 School Year

18. How to Set a Student Goal: Example (Cont.) The reading intervention planned for Randy would last 8 instructional weeks. Mrs. Chandler consulted the research norms and noted that a typical rate of growth in reading fluency for a 4th-grade student is 0.9 additional words per week. Mrs. Chandlers adjusted the 0.9 word growth rate for Randy upward by multiplying it by 1.5 because she realized that he needed to accelerate his learning to catch up with peers. When adjusted upward, the weekly growth rate for Randy increased from 0.9 to 1.35 additional words per minute.

19. How to Set a Student Goal: Example (Cont.) Multiplying the expected weekly progress of 1.35 additional words by the 8 weeks of the intervention, Mrs. Chandler found that Randy should acquire at least 11 additional words of reading fluency by the conclusion of the intervention. She added the 11 words per minute to Randy’s baseline of 70 words per minute and was able to predict that—if the 8-week intervention was successful—Randy would be able to read approximately 81 words per minute.

20. How to Set a Student Goal: Example (Cont.) Because Randy would not be expected to fully close the gap with peers in 8 weeks, Mrs. Chandler regarded her intervention goal of 81 words per minute as an intermediate rather than a final goal.However, if the intervention was successful and the student continued to add 1.35 words per week to his reading fluency, he could be expected to reach an acceptable level of fluency soon.

21. How to Monitor a Student Off-Level • Conduct a ‘survey level’ assessment of the student to find their highest ‘instructional’ level (between 25th and 50th percentile). • Student is monitored at ‘off level’ during the intervention (e.g., weekly). The ‘goal’ is to move the student up to the 50th percentile. • Once per month, the student is also assessed at grade level to monitor grade-appropriate performance. • When the student moves above 50th percentile on off-level, the interventionist tests the student on the next higher level. If the student performs above the 25th percentile on the next level, monitoring starts at the new, higher level.

22. Sample Reading Fluency Norms Source: Tindal, G., Hasbrouck, J., & Jones, C. (2005).Oral reading fluency: 90 years of measurement [Technical report #33]. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

23. Activity: Academic Goal-Setting • At your tables: • Review the guidelines for academic goal-setting using research-based norms. • How can you promote the use of this goal-setting approach in your school?

25. How to Set a Student Goal Determining Weekly Growth Rate: Method 2: If research norms with ‘ambitious’ rates of student growth are available, these can be used to determine the student’s weekly expected Rate of Improvement.

26. Example of Research-Based Norms for Weekly Reading Fluency Growth Predictions for Rates of Reading Growth by Grade (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993) Increase in Correctly Read Words Per Minute for Each Instructional Week Grade Level Realistic Weekly Goal Ambitious Weekly Goal Grade 1 2.0 3.0 Grade 2 1.5 2.0 Grade 3 1.0 1.5 Grade 4 0.85 1.1 Grade 5 0.5 0.8 Grade 6 0.3 0.65

29. RTI Lab: Creating District Decision Rules for Analyzing RTI Data to Determine LD EligibilityJim Wrightwww.interventioncentral.org

30. Learning Disabilities in the Age of RTI: Introduction • Analyzing Student Academic Risk: Performance Level and Rate of Improvement • Evaluating a Student’s ‘Non-Responder’ Status: A Comprehensive Checklist • Developing Your District’s Decision Rules for Using RTI Data to Determine ‘Non-Response’ Status: First Steps RTI Data & LD Determination: Agenda…

31. The process by which public schools identify students as learning disabled often appears to be confusing, unfair, and logically inconsistent. In fact, G. Reid Lyon of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has suggested that the field of learning disabilities is a sociological sponge whose purpose has been and is to clean up the spills of general education. (Gresham, 2001) “ ” Source: Gresham, F. M.. (2001). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit, Washington DC.

32. RTI & Special Education Eligibility

33. Special Education Eligibility & RTI: Establishing Confidence at Every Link • Special Education Eligibility Teams review the CUMULATIVE RTI information collected in general education (‘intervention audit’). • If that Team lacks confidence in any one of the links in the RTI chain, it will be difficult to identify the student as an RTI ‘non-responder’ • The goal of this workshop is to help schools to identify each link in the RTI chain and to know how to measure the quality of that link.

34. RTI Assumption: Struggling Students Are ‘Typical’ Until Proven Otherwise… RTI logic assumes that: • A student who begins to struggle in general education is typical, and that • It is general education’s responsibility to find the instructional strategies that will unlock the student’s learning potential Only when the student shows through well-documented interventions that he or she has ‘failed to respond to intervention’ does RTI begin to investigate the possibility that the student may have a learning disability or other special education condition.

35. Tier 3: Intensive interventions. Students who are ‘non-responders’ to Tiers 1 & 2 are referred to the RTI Team for more intensive interventions. Tier 3 Tier 2 Individualized interventions. Subset of students receive interventions targeting specific needs. Tier 2 Tier 1: Universal interventions. Available to all students in a classroom or school. Can consist of whole-group or individual strategies or supports. Tier 1 RTI ‘Pyramid of Interventions’

36. What previous approach to diagnosing Learning Disabilities does RTI replace? Prior to RTI, many states used a ‘Test-Score Discrepancy Model’ to identify Learning Disabilities. • A student with significant academic delays would be administered an battery of tests, including an intelligence test and academic achievement test(s). • If the student was found to have a substantial gap between a higher IQ score and lower achievement scores, a formula was used to determine if that gap was statistically significant and ‘severe’. • If the student had a ‘severe discrepancy’ [gap] between IQ and achievement, he or she would be diagnosed with a Learning Disability.

37. Avg Classroom Academic Performance Level Discrepancy 1: Skill Gap (Current Performance Level) Discrepancy 2: Gap in Rate of Learning (‘Slope of Improvement’) Target Student ‘Dual-Discrepancy’: RTI Model of Learning Disability(Fuchs 2003)

38. Current NYS Definition of ‘Learning Disabled’

39. RTI Information: What It Does and Doesn’t Do • The primary purpose for the special education eligibility team to evaluate general-education RTI information is to rule out instructional explanations for the struggling student’s academic concerns. • RTI information does not in and of itself provide detailed information to allow schools to draw conclusions about a student’s possible neurological differences that make up the construct ‘learning disabilities’. • Therefore, RTI information allows for a rule-out (the learning problem resides within the student, not the classroom) but does not in and of itself provide positive evidence of a learning disability.

40. Using RTI Information to Identify the ‘Non-Responding’ Student: Goodbye, Gate • As a special education eligibility team adopts a process for evaluating a student’s RTI information as a ‘non-responder’ to intervention as part of an evaluation for learning disabilities, the team will discover that there is no longer a single ‘actuarial number’ or gate to determine ‘risk’ of LD in the manner of a test score discrepancy analysis. • Therefore, the special education eligibility team must have confidence in the quality of the intervention and assessment programs available to the struggling student in the general education setting. • Today’s workshop is about increasing that level of confidence.

41. Team Activity: What Are Your Major Challenges in Using RTI Data to Help to Determine Special Education Eligibility? What are the major challenge(s) that your school or district faces as you make the transition to using RTI data to help to make special education eligibility decisions?

42. Evaluating a Student’s ‘Non-Responder’ Status: An RTI Checklist

44. Evaluating a Student’s ‘Non-Responder’ Status: An RTI Checklist Interventions: Evidence-Based & Implemented With Integrity • Tier 1: High-Quality Core Instruction • Tier 1: Classroom Intervention • Tier 2 & 3 Interventions: Minimum Number & Length • Tier 2 & 3 Interventions: Essential Elements • Tier 1, 2, & 3 Interventions: Intervention Integrity

45. Evaluating a Student’s ‘Non-Responder’ Status: Activity • At your table: Review these ‘RTI Non-Responder’ elements. • Tier 1: High-Quality Core Instruction • Tier 1: Classroom Intervention • Tier 2 & 3 Interventions: Minimum Number & Length • Tier 2 & 3 Interventions: Essential Elements • Tier 1, 2, & 3 Interventions: Intervention Integrity • Select the element that you see as your school or district’s greatest challenge. Brainstorm ideas to positively address that challenge.