Get documents about "Universal Screening Benchmarking
Document Sample
Universal Screening &
Benchmarking
Madi Phillips, Ph.D. NCSP
ASPIRE Regional Coordinator
madi.phillips@gmail.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Problem-Solving Content Based on:
Alliance for School-based P-S & Intervention Resources in
Education (ASPIRE) Illinois Grant www.illinoisaspire.org
Northern Suburban Special Education District P-S Grant
Heartland Area Education Agency 11 Johnston, Iowa
Christine Martin
Dr. Michelle Shinn
Sue Gallagher for her humor.
I WISH TO THANK
PBIS Content Based on: THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR SHARING
OSEP Center for PBIS THEIR INFORMATION AND WISDOM.
Illinois PBIS Network
Agenda
• Context for Problem Solving and Response
to Intervention (RtI) in a 3-Tier Model
• Morning: Universal Screening &
Benchmarking Concepts & Vocabulary
• Afternoon: Application Activities in Teams
Without Problem Solving
Special Education
Sea of Ineligibility
General Education
The “Old” Problem Solving Heuristic
Special Education
Amount of General Education
Resources
Needed
with Support
To Benefit
General Education
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Our First Attempt at General
Education with Support
Why wasn’t the Teacher Assistance Team
(TAT) model effective?
– A small subset of staff was attempting to impact a
large group of students.
– Did not change the philosophical beliefs of staff.
– Most staff saw this model as a “hoop” to jump
through to get to sped.
– The “neediest” students were not always referred.
– Sped students were usually not discussed.
Building a 3-Tier Service Delivery Model
INTENSIVE:
CONTINUUM OF Tertiary Prevention:
SCHOOL-WIDE Specialized
INSTRUCTIONAL & Individualized
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR ~5% Systems for High-Risk
SUPPORT Students
~15% TARGETED:
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for At-Risk
UNIVERSAL: Students
Primary Prevention:
School-/Classroom-
Wide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
Problem-Solving Steps:
How Data-Based Decisions are made..
Problem Identification
What is the Problem and Is it Significant?
Plan Evaluation Problem Analysis
Did our plan work? Why is it happening?
Plan Development
What shall we do about it?
The VISION: To Provide Effective Interventions to Meet the
Needs of ALL Students Through Early and Scientifically
Based Interventions Through Careful Systems Planning
Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al.
(2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education,
Inc.
Federal Regulations Define Scientifically Based
§300.35 Scientifically based research. Has the meaning given the term in section 9101(37) of the ESEA. 20 U.S.C.
1411(e)(2)(C)(xi))
(b) definition of research that--
Discussion: TheIncludes scientifically based research is important to the implementation of Part B of the Act and, therefore, we
(1) Employs the definition of that term in section methods that draw on observation
will include a reference tosystematic, empirical 9101(37) of the ESEA. Scientifically based research-- or
experiment;
(a) Means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge
(2) Involves rigorous definition that are adequate to based
Discussion: Thedata analyses of scientificallytest the stated
relevant to education activities and programs; and
(b) Includes research that--
hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
research is important to the methods that provide
(3) Relies on measurements or observationalimplementation
(1) Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
(2) Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
reliable research that involves the application of
(a) Means observational methods that provide evaluators and observers, across across
Relies on measurements or and valid data across reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, multiple
(3)
of Part B of the Act and, therefore, we will
measurements and across studies by the and different investigators;
multiple measurements and observations, andobservations, same or across studies by the same or
rigorous, systematic, and objective
different investigators;
(4)
include a reference to the definition of that
Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to
procedures to obtain or quasi-experimental
(4) Is evaluated using experimentalreliable and valid designs in
different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-
(5)
term in section 9101(37) of the ESEA.
assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;
which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to
Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the
knowledge and with appropriate controls to evaluate the
different conditionsrelevant to education activities andeffects
Scientifically based a preference for
of the peer-reviewed of interest, with research-- random-assignment
opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and
(6) Has been accepted by a condition journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous,
programs; and
experiments,
objective, and scientific review. or other designs to the extent that those designs contain
within-condition or across-condition controls;
(5) Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail
and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity
to build systematically on their findings; and
(6) Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a
panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous,
objective, and scientific review.
Illinois State Regulations
Each district shall, no later than the
beginning of the 2010-11 school year,
implement the use of a process that
determines how the child responds to
scientific, research-based interventions as
part of the evaluation procedure described
in 34 CFR 300.304.
Illinois State Regulations
No later than January 1, 2009, each district shall develop a plan for
the transition to the use of a process that determines how the child
responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the
evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR 300.304. Each district’s
plan shall identify the resources the district will devote to this purpose
and include an outline of the types of State-level assistance the
district expects to need, with particular reference to the professional
development necessary for its affected staff members to implement
this process. The transition plan developed pursuant to this
subsection (c) may be incorporated into a district’s district
improvement plan (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 1.85(b)) if one exists.
Websites for Intervention Review
• Florida Center for Reading Research:
www.fcrr.org
• Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement
(IDEA; University of Oregon) http://reading.uoregon.edu/
• Oregon Reading First Center:
http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/SIprograms.php
• Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts:
www.texasreading.org
• Texas Reading Initiative: www.tea.state.tx.us
• University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning
http://www.ku-crl.org/
• Intervention Central: www.interventioncentral.org
• Kevin Feldman: www.scoe.org
• Positive Behavior Intervention Support: www.pbis.org,
www.pbisillinois.org
• Safe & Civil Schools: www.safeandcivilschools.com
• Task Related Skills: Curriculum & Associates: Anita Archer
– Skills for School Success
– Advanced Skills for School Success
http://www.curriculumassociates.com/
• What Works Clearinghouse
http://www.w-w-c.org/
• The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
http://www.casel.org/home/index.php
Purposes of Assessment
• Who has problems? (Problem Identification)
• Why is the problem is occurring? (Problem Analysis)
• Is our instruction working to fix the problem?
(Plan Development & Implementation)
• How well are we doing overall? (Plan Evaluation)
Taken from Heartland AEA 11
Tools: Scientifically Based Progress
Monitoring
www.studentprogress.org
Standards for Scientifically Based Progress
Monitoring Have Been Established
Reliability Quality of Good Test
Validity Quality of Good Test
Sufficient Number of Alternate Forms and of Equal Essential for Progress
Difficulty Monitoring
Evidence of Sensitivity to Improvement or to Effects of Critical for Progress
intervention Monitoring
Critical for Progress
Benchmarks of Adequate Progress and Goal Setting
Monitoring
Critical for Progress
Rates of Improvement are Specified
Monitoring
Evidence of Impact on Teacher Decision Making Critical for Formative
instruction or Student Achievement; Evaluation
Gold Standard for Progress
Evidence of Improved Instruction and Student
Monitoring
Achievement;
Logistically Feasible--Low Cost, Efficient, Accurate, Critical for IMPLEMENTATION
Most Tools that Meet
Standards are
Members of the
Curriculum-Based
Measurement (CBM)
“Family”
What Does R-CBM Measure?
Phonemic ALL
Beware the Trap of
Phonemic Awareness
Awareness These Skills
the BOXES-
Low Scores “in the
Phonics
Alphabetic
Understanding
Box” Reading
General Mean You
Fluency
Fluency
Vocabulary Must TEACH the
Skill
Comprehension
Vocabulary Things in the Box
http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/
Comprehension
Technically Adequate
Comprehension Criterion Measures Correlation
Measures
ORF SAT Word Study .80
SAT Comprehension .91
Question Answering SAT Word Study .66
SAT Comprehension .82
Recall SAT Word Study .58
SAT Comprehension .70
Cloze SAT Word Study .71
SAT Comprehension .72
from Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell,L. (1988). The validity of informal reading
comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
Office
Discipline
Referral
Form
What Assessment Systems Does Your District/School/Grade Level Use for Each Purpose?
Progress
Screening Diagnostic Monitoring
Essential Outcome/
(Problem (Problem (Plan
components Accountability
Identification) Analysis) Development &
Implementation)
Reading
Behavior
Taken from Heartland AEA 11
Tier 1: Problem Identification
Question: What is the discrepancy between what
is expected and what is occurring?
A. List problem behavior(s) and prioritize.
B. Collect baseline data on primary area of concern
(target student and peer).
• Record Review
• Interview
• Observation
• Testing
C. State discrepancy between target student(s)
performance and peer performance.
Methods of Measuring
Performance Discrepancies
• Norm-Based Approaches
– Percentile Rank Cut Scores
– Discrepancy Ratios
• Standards-Based Approaches
– Cut Scores for ISAT
– Illinois AIMSweb Standards
– Oregon DIBELS Standards
Tier 1:
Problem Identification
• Determine whether there is a discrepancy
between….
– Your school/grade level’s universal student
percentage vs. goal of 80%.
• What standards do you use to determine 80%?
– DIBELS criteria (dibels.uoregon.edu)
– CBM target scores for ISAT
– Illinois AIMSweb Norms
Winter Av erage
Fall Winter Percentile Rate of Rate of
Student Teacher WRC WRC Rank Classification Progress Progress
S, A Smith 209 208 1.00 Well Above Average -0.1 1.3
all students included sampling of students
K, D Jones 159 170 0.93 Well Above Average 0.6 1.3
F, M Smith 134 156 0.90 Above Average 1.2 1.3
H, A Smith 130 148 0.81 Above Average 1.0 1.3
E, S Smith 115 145 0.75 Average 1.7 1.3
P, A Jones 96 133 0.68 Average 2.1 1.3
K, C Jones 109 114 0.51 Average 0.3 1.3
S, D Armstrong 66 112 0.46 Average 2.6 1.3
B, C Armstrong 92 94 0.36 Average 0.1 1.3
E, A Armstrong 61 80 0.25 Average 1.1 1.3
A, B Smith 39 65 0.24 Below Average 1.4 1.3
R, P Armstrong 42 63 0.22 Below Average 1.2 1.3
M, W Jones 50 60 0.20 Below Average 0.6 1.3
G, S Jones 28 58 0.19 Below Average 1.7 1.3
J, J Smith 20 54 0.17 Below Average 1.9 1.3
M, A Smith 38 51 0.15 Below Average 0.7 1.3
B, J Jones 47 48 0.14 Below Average 0.1 1.3
P, M Smith 47 45 0.10 Below Average -0.1 1.3
A, D Armstrong 38 45 0.10 Below Average 0.4 1.3
M, T Jones 42 41 0.08 Well Below Average -0.1 1.3
D, Z Armstrong 31 39 0.07 Well Below Average 0.4 1.3
M, M Smith 30 38 0.03 Well Below Average 0.4 1.3
D, A Jones 18 38 0.03 Well Below Average 1.1 1.3
K, A Armstrong 8 21 0.02 Well Below Average 0.7 1.3
A, J Jones 7 18 0.00 Well Below Average 0.6 1.3
Standards-Based Approach
Oregon DIBELS Standards
R-CBM Norms for Illinois 2005-2006
Grade Percentile Fall Winter Spring
1 90 88 104 130
75 48 70 100
50 17 37 70
25 6 19 45
10 3 12 27
N 931 4496 4670
Mean 32 49 76
StdDev 36 38 41
2 90 127 144 159
75 98 121 137
50
25
71
46
95
70
111
86
Illinois
10 23 46 64
N
Mean
3913
74
4297
95
4499
111
AIMSweb
StdDev 38 38 38
3 90
75
151
127
164
142
180
156
Norms
50 96 116 131
25 70 89 103
10 44 62 77
N 4247 4394 4524
Mean 98 115 129
StdDev 40 40 41
4 90 166 180 198
75 141 157 172
50 115 129 143
25 91 104 116
10 67 80 93
N 4149 4352 4512
Mean 116 130 144
StdDev 38 39 41
5 90 183 196 205
75 160 174 182
50 132 147 157
25 104 117 126
10 80 91 100
N 4065 4066 3964
Mean 132 145 154
StdDev 41 41 41
Illinois
AIMSweb
Norms
Standards-Based Approach
Illinois AIMSweb Standards
PBIS Office Discipline
Referrals Elementary
PBIS Office Discipline
Referrals Middle School
SWISTM summary 05-06 (Majors Only)
1668 schools, 838,184 students
Grade Number of Number of Mean
Range Schools Students ODRs per
100 per
school day
K-6 1010 439,932 .37
Mean = 435 (sd=.50)
6-9 312 205,129 1.01
Mean = 657 (sd=1.06)
9-12 104 102,325 1.16
Mean = 983 (sd=1.37)
K-(8-12) 239 90,198 1.09
Mean = 377 (sd=1.56)
DIBELS &
CBM Cutoffs
to the ISAT
Example of One School’s CBM Target Scores
for Meeting/Exceeding on the ISAT
Courtesy of Christine Martin, Indian Prairie School District, IL
Tier 2:
Problem Identification
• Determine whether there is a discrepancy
between….
– Your school/grade level’s targeted student
percentage vs. goal of 15%.
• What standards do you use to determine 15%?
– DIBELS criteria (dibels.uoregon.edu)
– CBM target scores for ISAT
– Illinois AIMSweb Norms
Tier 2 & 3 Individual Student
Problem Identification
• What is the discrepancy between what
is expected (5% or less students in Tier
3; 15% or less in Tier 2) and what is
occurring?
• If more than 5% (or 15%) of students
are in Tier 2 (or Tier 3), examine the
Tier 1 to make changes.
Individual Problem Identification
continued
• If Tier 3 includes 5% or less of students,
it makes sense to move on to individual
problem solving
• Looking at an individual student, define
the problem, collect data, & examine the
discrepancy between what is expected
and what is occurring
Step 1: Problem Identification
Question: What is the discrepancy between
what is expected and what is occurring?
A. List problem behavior(s) and prioritize.
B. Collect baseline data on primary area of concern (target
student and peer).
• Record Review
• Interview
• Observation
• Testing
C. State discrepancy between target student performance
and peer performance.
A. List Problem Behaviors
and Prioritize
• Teams should tackle one problem at a time.
• Consider the following problems first:
– Dangerous/Severe behaviors
– High frequency behaviors
– Foundational behaviors (e.g., reading)
– Chronic problem behaviors
• State the primary area of concern.
• Define behavior on which team is collecting data in
observable and measurable terms.
– When possible, define the behavior you want to see.
– Gain consensus.
B. Collect Baseline Data on
Primary Area of Concern
• Data can be collected from a number of sources:
– R = Record Review
– I = Interview
– O = Observation
– T = Testing
• And in a number of domains:
– Instruction
– Curriculum
– Environment
– Learner
• Collect only what you need to determine the
discrepancy between what is expected (peer
performance) and what is occurring (target student
performance).
• Use existing data when possible:
– Records (e.g., attendance)
– CBM/DIBELS benchmarking data
• Collect additional information when needed:
– Interview
– Observation (e.g., Frequency Count, On-task).
C. State Discrepancy
• Be objective. Does it refer to an observable
characteristic of behavior?
• Be clear. Can others read the discrepancy
statement and observe it easily?
• Calculate the discrepancy ratio
– Include statement of student’s current level of
performance.
– Include statement of the expected level of
performance (e.g., peer data, teacher
expectation).
Educational Need is Measured by a
PERFORMANCE DISCREPANCY
No Significant
Discrepancy
Educational
Need
Educational Need
Significant Performance Discrepancy
More Severe Educational Need
Discrepancy Ratios
• Quantify how many times the student’s current level of
performance varies from that of his/her peers.
• In order to calculate a discrepancy ratio use the
following formula:
– Peer Behavior / Target Behavior
– Example:When given a 4th grade AIMSweb probe, Jessica is
reading 55 correct words per minute, while average 4th grade
peers are reading 145 correct words per minute.
• Peer Behavior/Target Behavior
• 145/55 = 2.63
• Enables team to make decisions about levels
of support and resource from the start.
• Generally speaking…
– A student who is 2x discrepant from his/her peers
is appropriate for the problem-solving team.
– If a student is significantly discrepant from peers,
additional problem-solving and intervention
resources may be appropriate.
– Example: Jessica is 2.63x discrepant from peers
and may benefit from problem solving.
Provides a way to evaluate student outcomes
and the effectiveness of an intervention to
reduce initial performance discrepancies.
Name Grade Area Initial Follow Up Rate of Outcome
Performance Performance Progress Decision
Discrepancy Discrepancy
Bill 3 Reading 3.5X 2.2X 2.3 WRC Satisfactory
per week Maintain
Intervention
Susie 2 Reading 1.5X NA NA No Severe
Problem
Rob 4 Math 4.2X 3.8X .1 CD per No
week Progress,
Indicates
Severe
Problem
When do you use the
discrepancy formula?
• Tier 2 & 3 individual problem solving
only
• In cases when you don’t have norms or
clear benchmark criteria
Big Ideas of Benchmark Assessment
Benchmarking allows us to add systematic Formative Evaluation to
current practice.
For Teachers (and Students)
• Early Identification of At Risk Students
• Instructional Planning
• Progress Monitoring
For Parents
• Opportunities for Communication/Involvement
• Accountability
For Administrators
• Resource Allocation/Planning and Support
• Accountability
Managing and Completing Benchmark Assessment
Setting It All Up
• When to Test
• What to Test and Score
• Who Is Tested
• Who Does the Testing
• How Students are Tested
Setting It All Up:
Essentials Checklist (p. 30)
Benchmark Assessment Essentials Checklist (continued)
Step 1: Who is in Charge?
• Identifying a Benchmark Coordinator…
• Could be, but need not be, the School
Principal
• Even if District-wide, Should Also Be
Within-the-Building
How do we prepare Parents?
A letter sent directly home?
An article in the the school
newsletter describing
Benchmark Testing?
Notes:
Be Proactive!
Avoid Confusion with “Norming!”
Preparing Staff
• Have Professional Articles Available
• Use Sample Products (Access to
Internet and Video)
• Layout Timelines, Sources of Support
and Training
When Will We Test?
AIMSweb Benchmark Assessment occurs three
times each school year within these time frames.
Fall 9/1 to 10/15
Winter 1/1 to 2/1
Spring 5/1 to 6/1
Testing should be completed in no more than 2
weeks.
Rational for Benchmark
Testing Schedule
Fall: An initial beginning of the year student and
teacher adjustment period. Not too soon, and
not too late.
Winter: An opportunity for a “mid-course correction.”
Spring: Summative evaluation of progress and
planning for Summer and next year.
Testing Time Planning Sheet
What to Test?
Best to Start with Reading and Early Literacy
Kindergarten:
• Letter Naming Fluency
• Letter Sound Fluency
• Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
• Nonsense Word Fluency
1st Grade:
• Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
• Nonsense Word Fluency
• Reading-CBM
2nd-8th Grade:
• Reading-CBM
Things You Need Before Testing Letter Naming Fluency
Specific Materials Arranged:
• Student copy of Letter
Naming Fluency (not
numbered)
• Examiner copy of Letter
Naming Fluency
(numbered for easy
scoring)
• Clipboard to provide a
hard surface for
recording student
answers
• Stopwatch
Things You Need Before Testing Letter Sound Fluency
Specific Materials Arranged:
• Student copy of Letter
Sound Fluency (not
numbered)
• Examiner copy of Letter
Sound Fluency
(numbered for easy
scoring)
• Clipboard to provide a
hard surface for
recording student
answers
• Stopwatch
Things You Need Before Testing Phonemic Segmentation Fluency
Specific Materials Arranged:
• Examiner copy of
Phonemic Segmentation
Fluency (numbered for
easy scoring)
• Clipboard to provide a
hard surface for recording
student answers
• Stopwatch
Things You Need Before Testing Nonsense Word Fluency
Specific Materials Arranged:
• Student copy of
Nonsense Word
Fluency (not numbered)
• Examiner copy of
Nonsense Word
Fluency (numbered for
easy scoring)
• Practice Examples
• Clipboard to provide a
hard surface for
recording student
answers
• Stopwatch
Things you Need Before Testing
Standard Reading
Assessment Passage
Student Copy:
• No numbers
• Between 250-300
words (exception: 1st
grade)
• An informative first
sentence
• Same font style and
size
• Text without pictures
Things you Need Before Testing
Standard Reading
Assessment Passage
Examiner Copy:
Pre-numbered so they
can be scored quickly
and immediately.
How and What Will We Test?
Students are tested individually using Standardized
Administration and Scoring of Early Literacy and R-CBM
Passages.
For Early Literacy, students are administered one probe
from each measure.
5-10 minutes should be allocated per student (depending
on the # of measures administered).
For Reading-CBM, students read 3 passages so that the
highest score and the lowest score are deleted, leaving
the median.
5 minutes should be allocated per student.
Who Will We Test?
ALL students on a general education teacher’s
class roster excluding those students who do not
have the physical skills to participate meaningfully.
Who Will Do The Testing?
It is possible, but not necessary, for general
education teachers alone to collect all the
Benchmark information.
Other Persons..
• Teacher aides
• Title I teachers and aides
• Special education teachers and aides
• Principals and other administrators
• School psychologists, counselors, speech and
language pathologists
• Student teachers and other pre-service
undergraduate and graduate trainees
• Community members
Who Will Do The Testing?
The Key Variable is Training
Plan a Session for All that Addresses
Professional Ethics
Test Security
Confidentiality/Sensitivity
Train with Rigor, Using the Administration and
Scoring Workbook
Check Reliability for All Personnel
How to test?
• Identify Where
• Identify the People
• Plan the Schedule
Where will the testing take place?
Possible Locations:
• Station(s) within the Classrooms
• Station(s) in the Halls
• Stations in Media Center
• Stations in Lunchroom
• Stations in Gym
Minimize “Travel Time” and Distractions
Develop the Schedule
Scheduling the Day
•5-7 students screened at one time.
•1 Station should be devoted to
entering the data.
•A teaching assistant supervises the
children waiting in the hall.
•Staff score protocols immediately.
•Results should be available to
teachers and administrators at the
end of the school day.
After Testing
Make Sure There is a Data Entry Plan and
Responsibilities--Don’t Wait Until Afterward
Make Sure that a “Done Time” is Specified and
Adhered To
Schedule a Staff Debriefing
• To Demonstrate How to Interpret and Share
Information
• Do Debrief What Worked and Problem-Solve
Solutions
Grade Level Meetings
Purpose
Grade Level Data Review, Analysis,
Define Tier and
Intervention Planning
Cut-Off Scores Create Updated
& Review Intervention
Triangle Plan for
Data Each Tier
Review Resources
Group Students Review &
According to Interventions Match to
Tiers & Needs & Match Interventions
to Students’
Needs
Grade Level Meetings
Purpose
Grade Level Data Review, Analysis,
Define Tier and
Intervention Planning
Cut-Off Scores Create Updated
& Review Intervention
Triangle Plan for
Data Each Tier
Review Resources
Group Students Review &
According to Interventions Match to
Tiers & Needs & Match Interventions
to Students’
Needs
Part 1: Problem
Identification
Define Tier
Cut-Off Scores
& Review
Triangle
Data
DIBELS &
CBM Cutoffs
to the ISAT
Example of One School’s CBM Target Scores
for Meeting/Exceeding on the ISAT
Courtesy of Christine Martin, Indian Prairie School District, IL
Part 2: Problem Analysis
Group Students
According to
Tiers & Needs
at 2 Benchmark
List Students Tier 2Tier Fall& 3
Tier 3 Fall Benchmark
Brody 28 wrc
Natalie 6 wrc
Colin 29 wrc
Matthew14 wrc
Andy 32 wrc
Jack 17 wrc
David 35 wrc
Allie 19 wrc
Eric 36 wrc
John 19 wrc
Brian 41 wrc
Kelly 26 wrc
Ryan 47 wrc
Jeff 47 wrc
Hannah 48 wrc
Elaina 48 wrc
Tess 49 wrc
Riley 51 wrc
Renee 53 wrc
Matthew 54 wrc
Part 3: Plan Development
Review
Interventions
& Match
to Students’
Needs
at 2 Benchmark
List Students Tier 2Tier Fall& 3
Tier 3 Fall Benchmark
Brody 28 wrc
Natalie 6 wrc
Colin 29 wrc Intervention
Matthew14 wrc Kit
Andy 32 wrc
Jack 17 wrc CORE 4x/wk
+ David 35 wrc
Allie 19 wrc
Horizons Eric 36 wrc
John 19 wrc + Brian 41 wrc
Kelly 26 wrc Teacher
Directed Ryan 47 wrc
PALS Jeff 47 wrc Intervention
Hannah 48 wrc Kit
4x/wk
Elaina 48 wrc
Tess 49 wrc
Riley 51 wrc IV Kit
Fluency
Renee 53 wrc
Builder
Matthew 54 wrc 1x/wk
Part 3: Plan Development
Review
Resources
& Match
to Interventions
Resources Matched with
Interventions
Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs Fri.
9:15- 9:45- 9:15- 9:45- 9:15- 9:45- 9:15- 9:45- 9:15- 9:45-
9:45 10:15 9:45 10:15 9:45 10:15 9:45 10:15 9:45 10:15
Mike IV1 IV2 FB2 w/ 2 Works w/ Works w/ Works w/
A/Mi 2A & 2Mi 2A & 2Mi 2A & 2Mi
Carolyn
TP TP FB1 w/ TP TP TP TP TP TP
2C 1
2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Lisa TP TP Prog
Mon
Plan TP TP TP TP TP TP
Erica Mtg
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Margi Plan
e IV2 IV1 IV2 IV1 w/ w/ IV2 w/ IV1
IV = Intervention Kit Mtg 2C
TP = Teacher Pals 2C
2C FB = Fluency Builder
Part 3: Plan Development
Create Updated
Intervention Plan
for Each Tier
Reading Instruction in 3-Tiers
Direct Guided Word Wall
Block Shared Reading
Instruction Reading Words
Decoding
Fluency Fluency,
Skill Focus Spelling Comprehension
Phonemic Decoding
Awareness
Time
60-90 min 15 min 30 min 30 min
Allotted
Staff SE, RS GE GE GE
Tier 3 Instructional Reading = 135-165* minutes
Assessment- Weekly Using R-CBM
Block
Direct
Instruction
15%
Guided
Reading
Word Wall
Words
Shared Reading
Decoding
Fluency Fluency,
Skill Focus Spelling Comprehension
Phonemic Decoding
Awareness
Time
45 min 15 min 30 min 30 min
Allotted
Staff RS, SE GE GE GE
Tier 2 Instructional Reading = 120 Minutes
Assessment- Weekly Using R-CBM
Word Wall
Block Guided Reading Shared Reading
Words
Skill Focus Fluency, Decoding Spelling Comprehension
Time
20 min 30 min 30 min
Allotted
Staff GE GE GE
Tier 1 Instructional Reading = 80 Minutes
Assessment- 3 Times/Year Using R-CBM
Sample IPF:First Grade
Student Name_______________________ Teacher Name________________ School Year ____________
Goal ___________________________________________________________________________________
Instructional Strategies Materials Arrangemen Time Motivational Assessment
t Strategies Procedures
Skill Teaching
Strategy
Decoding/Encoding Teacher-Led Word Walls 19:1 20 mins. Verbal Praise Leveled
(Working with Instruction Word Cards Independent daily Benchmarking
Words) Independent Spelling Test
Vocabulary, Fluency Teacher-Led Teacher 19:1 30 mins. Verbal Praise Leveled
(Teacher Read-Aloud Independent Selected Independent daily Benchmarking
Silent Reading) Stories/Books Class
on Theme Discussion
Leveled Books
Comprehension Teacher-Led Big Books 19:1 20 mins. Verbal Praise Leveled
(Guided Reading) Instruction Trade Books Independent daily Benchmarking
Independent Class
Discussion
Fluency & Teacher-Led Leveled Books 3-6:1 20 mins. Verbal Praise Leveled
Comprehension Instruction 3x wk Benchmarking
(Guided Reading Class
Groups) Discussion
10/03 Adapted from the U of Oregon
Sample IPF: First Grade
Student Name__________ Teacher Name________________ School Year ________
Goal ________________________________________________________________
Instructional Strategies Materials Arrangeme Time Motivationa Assessment
nt l Strategies Procedures
Skill Teaching
Strategy
Decoding/Encoding Teacher-Led Word Walls 19:1 20 mins. Verbal Praise Leveled
(Working with Words) Instruction Word Cards Independent daily Benchmarking
Independent Spelling Test
Vocabulary, Fluency Teacher-Led Teacher 19:1 30 mins. Verbal Praise Leveled
(Teacher Read-Aloud Independent Selected Independent daily Benchmarking
Silent Reading) Stories/Books 20 mins. Class
on Theme daily for At- Discussion
Leveled Books Risk
Students
Comprehension Teacher-Led Big Books 19:1 20 mins. Verbal Praise Leveled
(Guided Reading) Instruction Trade Books Independent daily Benchmarking
Independent Class
Discussion
Fluency & Teacher-Led Leveled Books 3-6:1 20 mins. 3x Verbal Praise Leveled
Comprehension Instruction wk Benchmarking
(Guided Reading Class
Groups) Discussion
All 5 Nat’l Reading Teacher-Led Read Well 3-6:1 20 mins. 4x Verbal Praise CBM 1x
Panel Skills Instruction At-Risk wk monthly
Students Only
10/03 Adapted from the U of Oregon
Step 4: Plan Implementation &
Evaluation
•Team made sure everyone was trained in the
interventions they’d be using
•Plan put into place
•Progress monitoring of Tier 2 & Tier 3 students
Ex: 1st Grade PM (Tier 2)
Ex: 1st Grade PM (Tier 2)
Ex: 1st Grade PM (Tier 2)
Ex: 2nd Grade PM (Tier 2)
Ex: 2nd Grade PM (Tier 3*)
Ex: 2nd Grade PM (Tier 3*)
Tier 3 Tier 1
Ex: 3rd Grade PM (Tier 3)
Related docs
