RTI: Schoolwide Academic Screening & Progress-Monitoring Jim Wright interventioncentral

1. RTI: Schoolwide Academic Screening & Progress-MonitoringJim Wrightwww.interventioncentral.org

2. RTI Literacy: Assessment & Progress-Monitoring To measure student ‘response to instruction/intervention’ effectively, the RTI model measures students’ academic performance and progress on schedules matched to each student’s risk profile and intervention Tier membership. • Benchmarking/Universal Screening. All children in a grade level are assessed at least 3 times per year on a common collection of academic assessments. • Strategic Monitoring. Students placed in Tier 2 (supplemental) reading groups are assessed 1-2 times per month to gauge their progress with this intervention. • Intensive Monitoring. Students who participate in an intensive, individualized Tier 3 intervention are assessed at least once per week. Source: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge.

3. Educational Decisions and Corresponding Types of Assessment • SCREENING/BENCHMARKING DECISIONS: Tier 1: Brief screenings to quickly indicate whether students in the general-education population are academically proficient or at risk. • PROGRESS-MONITORING DECISIONS: At Tiers and 3, ongoing ‘formative’ assessments to judge whether students on intervention are making adequate progress. • INSTRUCTIONAL/DIAGNOSTIC DECISIONS: At any Tier, detailed assessment to map out specific academic deficits , discover the root cause(s) of a student’s academic problem. • OUTCOME DECISIONS: Summative assessment (e.g., state tests) to evaluate the effectiveness of a program. Source: Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.

4. Measuring General vs. Specific Academic Outcomes General Outcome Measures… • Track the student’s increasing proficiency on general curriculum goals such as reading fluency. Example: CBM-Oral Reading Fluency (Hintz et al., 2006). • Are most useful for longer-term measurement (e.g., to set and track IEP goals over the timespan of a school year). Sources: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge. Hintz, J. M., Christ, T. J., & Methe, S. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45-56.

5. Measuring General vs. Specific Academic Outcomes Specific Sub-Skill Mastery Measures… • Track short-term student academic progress with clear criteria for mastery (Burns & Gibbons, 2008). Example: Letter Identification. • Are helpful in assessing whether the student has acquired short-term skills whose acquisition may require weeks rather than months. Sources: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge. Hintz, J. M., Christ, T. J., & Methe, S. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45-56.

6. Curriculum-Based Measurement: An Introduction

7. Curriculum-Based Measurement: Advantages as a Set of Tools to Monitor RTI/Academic Cases • Aligns with curriculum-goals and materials • Is reliable and valid (has ‘technical adequacy’) • Is criterion-referenced: sets specific performance levels for specific tasks • Uses standard procedures to prepare materials, administer, and score • Samples student performance to give objective, observable ‘low-inference’ information about student performance • Has decision rules to help educators to interpret student data and make appropriate instructional decisions • Is efficient to implement in schools (e.g., training can be done quickly; the measures are brief and feasible for classrooms, etc.) • Provides data that can be converted into visual displays for ease of communication Source: Hosp, M.K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM. New York: Guilford.

8. Among other areas, CBM Techniques have been developed to assess: • Reading fluency • Reading comprehension • Math computation • Writing • Spelling • Phonemic awareness skills • Early math skills

9. CBM: Developing a Process to Screen and Collect Local NormsJim Wrightwww.interventioncentral.org

10. Building-Wide Screening: Assessing All Students (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) Screening data in basic academic skills are collected at least 3 times per year (fall, winter, spring). • Schools should consider using ‘curriculum-linked’ measures such as Curriculum-Based Measurement that will show generalized student growth in response to learning. • If possible, schools should consider avoiding ‘curriculum-locked’ measures that are tied to a single commercial instructional program. Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 225-242). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

11. Building-Wide Screening: Using a Wide Variety of Data (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) Screenings can be compiled using: • Fluency measures such as Curriculum-Based Measurement. • Existing data, such as office disciplinary referrals. • Computer-delivered assessments, e.g., Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) from www.nwea.org Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 225-242). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

12. Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)www.nwea.org

13. Applications of Screening Data (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) Screening data can be used to: • Evaluate and improve the current core instructional program. • Allocate resources to classrooms, grades, and buildings where student academic needs are greatest. • Guide the creation of targeted Tier 2 (supplemental intervention) groups • Set academic goals for improvement for students on Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. • Move students across levels of intervention, based on performance relative to that of peers (local norms). Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 225-242). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

14. Screening Data: Supplement With Additional Academic Testing as Needed (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) “At the individual student level, local norm data are just the first step toward determining why a student may be experiencing academic difficulty. Because local norms are collected on brief indicators of core academic skills, other sources of information and additional testing using the local norm measures or other tests are needed to validate the problem and determine why the student is having difficulty. … Percentage correct and rate information provide clues regarding automaticity and accuracy of skills. Error types, error patterns, and qualitative data provide clues about how a student approached the task. Patterns of strengths and weaknesses on subtests of an assessment can provide information about the concepts in which a student or group of students may need greater instructional support, provided these subtests are equated and reliable for these purposes.” p. 237 Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 225-242). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

15. Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming/Screening Using CBM Measures • Identify personnel to assist in collecting data. A range of staff and school stakeholders can assist in the school norming, including: • Administrators • Support staff (e.g., school psychologist, school social worker, specials teachers, paraprofessionals) • Parents and adult volunteers • Field placement students from graduate programs Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/logistics/data_collection.pdf

16. Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming/Screening Using CBM Measures • Determine method for screening data collection. The school can have teachers collect data in the classroom or designate a team to conduct the screening: • In-Class: Teaching staff in the classroom collect the data over a calendar week. • Schoolwide/Single Day: A trained team of 6-10 sets up a testing area, cycles students through, and collects all data in one school day. • Schoolwide/Multiple Days: Trained team of 4-8 either goes to classrooms or creates a central testing location, completing the assessment over multiple days. • Within-Grade: Data collectors at a grade level norm the entire grade, with students kept busy with another activity (e.g., video) when not being screened. Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/logistics/data_collection.pdf

17. Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming/Screening Using CBM Measures • Select dates for screening data collection. Data collection should occur at minimum three times per year in fall, winter, and spring. Consider: • Avoiding screening dates within two weeks of a major student break (e.g., summer or winter break). • Coordinate the screenings to avoid state testing periods and other major scheduling conflicts. Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/logistics/data_collection.pdf

18. Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming/Screening Using CBM Measures • Create Preparation Checklist. Important preparation steps are carried out, including: • Selecting location of screening • Recruiting screening personnel • Ensure that training occurs for all data collectors • Line up data-entry personnel (e.g., for rapid computer data entry). Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/logistics/data_collection.pdf

19. Methods of Classroom Data CollectionJim Wrightwww.interventioncentral.org

20. Activity: Classroom Methods of Data Collection • In your teams: • Review the potential sources of classroom data that can be used to monitor Tier 1 interventions. • What questions do you have about any of these data sources? • How can your school make full use of these data sources to ensure that every Tier 1 intervention is monitored? Classroom Data Sources: • Global skills checklist • Rating scales • Behavioral frequency count • Behavioral log • Student work samples • Work performance logs • Timed tasks (e.g., CBM) • Existing records

21. 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’

23. Global Skills Checklists • Description: The teacher selects a global skill. The teacher then breaks that global skill down into specific, observable ‘subskills’. Each subskill can be verified as ‘done’ or ‘not done’.

24. Global Skills Checklists: Example • The teacher selects the global skill ‘organizational skills’. • That global skill is defined as having the following components, each of which can be observed: • arriving to class on time; • bringing work materials to class; • following teacher directions in a timely manner; • knowing how to request teacher assistance when needed; • having an uncluttered desk with only essential work materials.

25. Behavioral Frequency Count • Description: The teacher observes a student behavior and keeps a cumulative tally of the number of times that the behavior is observed during a given period. • Behaviors that are best measured using frequency counts have clearly observable beginning and end points—and are of relatively short duration. Examples include: • Student call-outs. • Requests for teacher help during independent seatwork. • Raising one’s hand to make a contribution to large-group discussion.

26. Behavioral Frequency Count: How to Record Teachers can collect data on the frequency of student behaviors in several ways: • Keeping a mental tally of the frequency of target behaviors occurring during a class period. • Recording behaviors on paper (e.g., simple tally marks) as they occur. • Using a golf counter, stitch counter, or other mechanical counter device to keep an accurate tally of behaviors.

27. Behavioral Frequency Count: How to Compute • If student behaviors are being tallied during a class period, frequency-count data can be reported as ‘X number of behaviors per class period’. • If frequency-count data is collected in different spans of time on different days, however, schools can use the following method to standardize frequency count data : • Record the total number of behaviors observed. • Record the number of minutes in the observation period. • Divide the total number of behaviors observed by total minutes in the observation period. Example: 5 callouts observed during a 10 minute period = 0.5 callouts per minute.

28. Behavior Log • Description: The teacher makes a log entry each time that a behavior is observed. An advantage of behavior logs is that they can provide information about the context within which a behavior occurs.(Disciplinary office referrals are a specialized example of a behavior log.) • Behavior logs are useful for tracking ‘low-incidence’ problem behaviors.

29. Behavior Log: Sample Form

30. Rating Scales • Description: A scale is developed that a rater can use to complete a global rating of a behavior. Often the rating scale is completed at the conclusion of a fixed observation period (e.g., after each class period). • Daily / Direct Behavior Report Cards are one example of rating scales.

31. Jim Blalock May 5 Mrs. Williams Rm 108 Daily Behavior Report Card: Daily Version

32. Student Work Samples • Description: Work samples are collected for information about the student’s basic academic skills, mastery of course content, etc. • Recommendation: When collecting work samples: • Record the date that the sample was collected • If the work sample was produced in class, note the amount of time needed to complete the sample (students can calculate and record this information). • If possible, collect 1-2 work samples from typical students as well to provide a standard of peer comparison.

33. Work Performance Logs • Description: Information about student academic performance is collected to provide insight into growth in student skills or use of skills in appropriate situations.Example: A teacher implementing a vocabulary-building intervention keeps a cumulative log noting date and vocabulary words mastered. • Example: A student keeps a journal with dated entries logging books read or the amount of ‘seat time’ that she spends on math homework.

34. Timed Tasks (e.g., Curriculum-Based Measurement) • Description: The teacher administers structured, timed tasks to assess student accuracy and fluency. • Example: The student completes a 2-minute CBM single-skill math computation probe. • Example: The student completes a 3-minute CBM writing probe that is scored for total words written.

35. Existing Records • Description: The teacher uses information already being collected in the classroom that is relevant to the identified student problem. • Examples of existing records that can be used to track student problems include: • Grades • Absences and incidents of tardiness • Homework turned in

36. Combining Classroom Monitoring Methods • Often, methods of classroom data collection and progress-monitoring can be combined to track a single student problem. • Example: A teacher can use a rubric (checklist) to rate the quality of student work samples. • Example: A teacher may keep a running tally (behavioral frequency count) of student callouts. At the same time, the student may be self-monitoring his rate of callouts on a Daily Behavior Report Card (rating scale).

37. Activity: Classroom Methods of Data Collection • In your teams: • Review the potential sources of classroom data that can be used to monitor Tier 1 interventions. • What questions do you have about any of these data sources? • How can your school make full use of these data sources to ensure that every Tier 1 intervention is monitored? Classroom Data Sources: • Global skills checklist • Rating scales • Behavioral frequency count • Behavioral log • Student work samples • Work performance logs • Timed tasks (e.g., CBM) • Existing records

38. RIOT/ICEL Framework: Organizing Information to Better Identify Student Behavioral & Academic Problems

39. Assessment Data: Reaching the ‘Saturation Point’ “…During the process of assessment, a point of saturation is always reached; that is, the point when enough information has been collected to make a good decision, but adding additional information will not improve the decision making. It sounds simple enough, but the tricky part is determining when that point has been reached. Unfortunately, information cannot be measured in pounds, decibels, degrees, or feet so there is no absolute amount of information or specific criterion for “enough” information.” p. 373 Source: Hosp, J. L. (2008). Best practices in aligning academic assessment with instruction. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp.363-376). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

41. RIOT/ICEL Framework Sources of Information • Review (of records) • Interview • Observation • Test Focus of Assessment • Instruction • Curriculum • Environment • Learner

42. RIOT/ICEL Definition • The RIOT/ICEL matrix is an assessment guide to help schools efficiently to decide what relevant information to collect on student academic performance and behavior—and also how to organize that information to identify probable reasons why the student is not experiencing academic or behavioral success.   • The RIOT/ICEL matrix is not itself a data collection instrument. Instead, it is an organizing framework, or heuristic, that increases schools’ confidence both in the quality of the data that they collect and the findings that emerge from the data.

43. RIOT: Sources of Information • Select Multiple Sources of Information: RIOT (Review, Interview, Observation, Test). The top horizontal row of the RIOT/ICEL table includes four potential sources of student information: Review, Interview, Observation, and Test (RIOT). Schools should attempt to collect information from a range of sources to control for potential bias from any one source.

44. Select Multiple Sources of Information: RIOT (Review, Interview, Observation, Test) • Review. This category consists of past or present records collected on the student. Obvious examples include report cards, office disciplinary referral data, state test results, and attendance records. Less obvious examples include student work samples, physical products of teacher interventions (e.g., a sticker chart used to reward positive student behaviors), and emails sent by a teacher to a parent detailing concerns about a student’s study and organizational skills.

45. Select Multiple Sources of Information: RIOT (Review, Interview, Observation, Test) • Interview. Interviews can be conducted face-to-face, via telephone, or even through email correspondence. Interviews can also be structured (that is, using a pre-determined series of questions) or follow an open-ended format, with questions guided by information supplied by the respondent. Interview targets can include those teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and support staff in the school setting who have worked with or had interactions with the student in the present or past. Prospective interview candidates can also consist of parents and other relatives of the student as well as the student himself or herself.

46. Select Multiple Sources of Information: RIOT (Review, Interview, Observation, Test) • Observation. Direct observation of the student’s academic skills, study and organizational strategies, degree of attentional focus, and general conduct can be a useful channel of information. Observations can be more structured (e.g., tallying the frequency of call-outs or calculating the percentage of on-task intervals during a class period) or less structured (e.g., observing a student and writing a running narrative of the observed events).

47. Select Multiple Sources of Information: RIOT (Review, Interview, Observation, Test) • Test. Testing can be thought of as a structured and standardized observation of the student that is intended to test certain hypotheses about why the student might be struggling and what school supports would logically benefit the student (Christ, 2008). An example of testing may be a student being administered a math computation CBM probe or an Early Math Fluency probe.

48. Formal Tests: Only One Source of Student Assessment Information “Tests are often overused and misunderstood in and out of the field of school psychology. When necessary, analog [i.e., test] observations can be used to test relevant hypotheses within controlled conditions. Testing is a highly standardized form of observation. ….The only reason to administer a test is to answer well-specified questions and examine well-specified hypotheses. It is best practice to identify and make explicit the most relevant questions before assessment begins. …The process of assessment should follow these questions. The questions should not follow assessment. “ p.170 Source: Christ, T. (2008). Best practices in problem analysis. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 159-176). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

49. ICEL: Factors Impacting Student Learning • Investigate Multiple Factors Affecting Student Learning: ICEL (Instruction, Curriculum, Environment, Learner). The leftmost vertical column of the RIO/ICEL table includes four key domains of learning to be assessed: Instruction, Curriculum, Environment, and Learner (ICEL). A common mistake that schools often make is to assume that student learning problems exist primarily in the learner and to underestimate the degree to which teacher instructional strategies, curriculum demands, and environmental influences impact the learner’s academic performance. The ICEL elements ensure that a full range of relevant explanations for student problems are examined.

50. Investigate Multiple Factors Affecting Student Learning: ICEL (Instruction, Curriculum, Environment, Learner) • Instruction. The purpose of investigating the ‘instruction’ domain is to uncover any instructional practices that either help the student to learn more effectively or interfere with that student’s learning. More obvious instructional questions to investigate would be whether specific teaching strategies for activating prior knowledge better prepare the student to master new information or whether a student benefits optimally from the large-group lecture format that is often used in a classroom. A less obvious example of an instructional question would be whether a particular student learns better through teacher-delivered or self-directed, computer-administered instruction.