1. Response to Intervention
(RTI)
Amy Piper, Ed.S., NCSP
School Psychologist
CSE Chairperson
Certified AIMSweb Trainer
Fredonia Central School
Fredonia, NY

2. Introduction
• Overview of school background
• Overview of professional experiences

3. Agenda
• Introduction
• Overview of RTI—some practical guidelines
• BREAK
• Problem Solving Teams and Research Based
Interventions
• LUNCH
• Classification of students through
RTI
• SUMMARY

4. Learning Disabilities
• 50% of students in Special Education are eligible under
LD category (2.9 million nationwide)
• 80% of those are eligible in the area of Reading.
• Numbers grown over 300% since 1975
• Most reading difficulties originate from poor
instruction, lack of reading readiness, and/or cultural
differences…

5. Changing School Demographics
Diverse SES status: School learning is affected
Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the
everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.

6. Learning Disabilities
• Recent studies have shown that when students with severe
reading problems are given early, intensive instruction,
nearly 95% can reach the national average in reading
ability!

7. The Science of Reading

8. The Importance of Reading
• The key to realization of dreams for many children
• Essential for academic success
• Reading problems have consequences all across
development
• Reading is acquired and must be taught
• Progress must be monitored frequently and
effectively to ensure success
(Shaywitz, 2003)

9. THE Best Way to Monitor
Curriculum-Based Measurement
• SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED
• Relies on ongoing measurements of reading
fluency
• Establishes how fast student is acquiring new
knowledge
• Measures how well a child has learned what he
has been taught
(Shaywitz, 2003)

10. CBM-Reading
• Growth or lack of growth is clearly visible
• Can track fluency rates as an objective measure to
identify if a child is responding to a particular
instructional approach
• Rate of growth compared to norms
• Don’t have to wait for end of school year to learn
about progress
(Shaywitz, 2003)

11. CBM-Reading
• Growth is greatest in early school years
• Growth is at max at beginning of year
• Fluency is the critical marker for permanency
• A fluent reader has formed permanent and perfect
models of words in his automatic word form
system for reading.
(Shaywitz, 2003)

12. Rate of Expected Weekly
Reading Growth
(Increase in Correct Words per Minute)
Grade Realistic Ambitious
1 2.00 3.00
2 1.50 2.00
3 1.00 1.50
4 .85 1.10
5 .50 .80
6 .30 .65
(Shaywitz, 2003)

13. Fluency
Reading a word accurately, quickly,
smoothly, and with good expression.

14. Fluency
• Fluency is acquired by practice, by reading
a word over and over again.
A reader must have four or more
successful encounters with a new word to
be able to read it fluently.
(Shaywitz, 2003)

15. Fluency
Once a word can be read fluently, the reader
no longer has any need to rely on context

16. Fluency
• Studies in which eye movements of readers are
tracked have shown that a skilled reader pauses at
between 50 and 80 percent of the words in a text.
• He needs to fixate on the words,essentially to scan
them in, but does so very, very quickly because
the words—their spelling patterns and
pronunciations—are well known to him.
(Shaywitz, 2003)

17. Fluency
• In addition to reading words accurately and
quickly, a skilled reader understands what
he read.
• Reading Comprehension develops gradually
so that, over time, the balance tips from
learning mostly from listening to learning
through reading.
(Shaywitz, 2003)

18. Poor Readers
• Inability to read fluently
• Devote their full concentration to decoding words
instead of attending to issues of comprehension
• Reflecting lack of fluency, they read slowly.
• Fluency binds a reader to text—if can’t read
fluently, cannot engage the text.
(Shaywitz, 2003)

19. Poor Readers
• Must devote all their attention to decoding the
words on the page
• More vulnerable to any noises or movement
• Reading is fragile, so any sound or movement
threatens ability to maintain reading
• Relies on brute memorization of words due to lack
of mastery of phonetic code
(Shaywitz, 2003)

20. Testimony to the President’s
Commission on Excellence in
Education
When teachers use progress monitoring
to inform their instructional planning,
students make greater academic gains.

21. President’s Commission, cont.
• More than 200 empirical studies published
in peer-review journals
– Provide evidence of CBM’s reliability and
validity for assessing the development of
competence in reading
– Document CBM’s capacity to help teachers
improve student outcomes at the elementary
grades
(Fuchs and Fuchs, 2002)

22. President’s Commission, cont
AT PRESENT, CBM is the MOST
conceptually sophisticated,
technically sound, and thoroughly
researched progress monitoring
system available.
(Fuchs and Fuchs, 2002)

23. Research demonstrates that when
teachers apply decision rules to
CBM graphs, they raise goals
more often and develop higher
expectations
(e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlet, 1989a),

24. they modify their instructional
programs more frequently
(e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlet, 1989b),

25. And they effect stronger student
achievement
(e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, and Stecker, 1991).

26. Naysayers of CBM
Some practitioners remain unconvinced of
CBM as a valid measure of general reading
achievement

27. Teacher Resistance
• Expressed presumption that R-CBM is
solely a measure of decoding skills
• Lacks face validity
• Argue that R-CBM will overestimate
reading skills and not be sensitive to
reading difficulties

28. Teacher Resistance
• Reading-CBM most highly related measure
(.91) to reading comprehension on Stanford
Achievement Test (SAT)
• R-CBM correlated significantly higher to
SAT comprehension than SAT decoding!

29. Anti-CBM???
• Is there a type of student, i.e, the “word
caller”?
• Can these students read text aloud fluently,
but don’t understand what they read?

30. Word-Callers
Word calling occurs when the words in the
text are efficiently decoded into their
spoken forms without comprehension of the
passage taking place
(Stanovich, 1986)

31. Word-Callers
• Research results did not confirm that
students that word-call
and similarly fluent peers
read equally well
(Hamilton, Shinn, 2002)

32. Word Callers
Word callers read fewer correct words per
minute and were significantly different on
the 3 other comprehension measures
(Hamilton, Shinn, 2002)

33. Word-Callers
Teachers are most inaccurate in prediction
of “word-caller” students’ oral reading
scores.
(Hamilton and Shinn, 2002)

34. Teacher Perception
• Teachers using terms accuracy and fluency
synonymously
• Accuracy is critical in the early grades, but
fluency gains importance as a child matures
• Children learn to read a word accurately
and then, after much practice, fluently
• Fluency describes how a skilled reader
reads aloud

35. Fluency
• Fluency is acquired word by word, reflecting the
words a child has read and fully mastered
• Accuracy is a necessary precursor to fluency,
accuracy does not necessary evolve into fluency
• Fluency is the ability to read a text quickly,
accurately, and with good understanding.
• It is the hallmark of a skilled reader.
• Children who are fluent readers love to read.
(Shaywitz, 2003)

36. English Language Learners
• There is a strong relation of R-CBM as a
measure of general reading proficiency with
English Language Learners.
• Correlations are comparable for both ELL
and English-only students on R-CBM and
criterion reading measures
(Baker and Good, 1995)

37. Using CBM in the classroom
• Consider setting up one area of the
classroom for assessment
• Material for probes should be organized and
available
• People other than the teacher may
administer the probes
(Pemberton, 2003)

38. Resources
• Fuchs, L. and Fuchs, D. (2002) Progress
Monitoring, Accountability,and LD Identification
Testimony to the President’s Commission on
Excellence in Special Education.
• Hamilton, C. and Shinn, M. (2002). Characteristics
of Word Callers: An Investigation of the Accuracy
of Teachers’ Judgments of Reading
Comprehension and Oral Reading Skills.US
Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Research, Washington, DC.
• Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia.
NY:Alfred A. Knopf Press.

39. All laws not created equal…
• There are 50 state definitions in addition to the federal definition for LD.
• Attempts to assess for LD involved a vast array of methods used to determine
intelligence.
• James Yssseldyke, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, concluded that 80
percent of all school children in the United States could qualify as learning-disabled
under one definition or another. (Shapiro et. al., 1993)
• Eligibility rules often appeared class-based. Though unintentional, they sadly
discriminated against low SES groups whose learning problems originated from
"environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."
• Though Federal regulations from 1970’s mandated use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was
essentially poorly researched, if at all.
• Used as a method to create a criteria for eligibility for LD and cap the number of
students who were eligible for services.
Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News & World Report, 47.

40. All laws not created equal…
• There are 50 state definitions in addition to the federal definition for LD.
“According to the Children's Defense Fund,
• Attempts to assess for LD involved a children starting firstused to have
middle-class vast array of methods grade determine
intelligence. been exposed to 1,000 to 1,700 hours of one-
on-one reading, while their low-income
• James Yssseldyke, a researcher at the University ofexposed to concluded that 80
counterparts have been Minnesota, only 25
percent of all school children in the United States could qualify as learning-disabled
under one definition or hours. It's littleet. al., 1993) that so many of these
another. (Shapiro wonder
kids get referred to special ed.”
• Eligibility rules often appeared class-based. Though unintentional, they sadly
discriminated against low SES groups whose learning problems originated from
(Washington Monthly, June 1999)
"environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."
• Though Federal regulations from 1970’s mandated use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was
essentially poorly researched, if at all.
• Used as a method to create a criteria for eligibility for LD and cap the number of
students who were eligible for services.
Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News & World Report, 47.

41. Identifying Key Concerns with
Previous IDEA Law
• For years, researchers have
advocated for a change to the
“discrepancy model” (a.k.a. “wait to
fail model.”)
• Misidentification of LD = greater #
of students in special education
services (300% + since 1975)
• “Sympathy” eligibility
• Eligibility as a “back-up plan” for
limited reg. ed. services

42. Changing the way we ID…LD!
New flexibility with IDEIA:
“In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, an LEA
shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe
discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability.”
• Law now provides districts/LEAs the option to eliminate IQ-discrepancy
requirements
• Embraces model of prevention—not failure
• Students with disabilities are considered general education students first with
interventions beginning in the general education classroom.
• Mandates that students cannot be identified as LD if they have not had
appropriate instruction in reading, meaning research-based, scientific
interventions.
IMPLICATIONS:
• General ed. must assume active responsibility for delivery of
high-quality instruction, interventions, and prompt ID of at-risk students
collaboratively.
• Special Ed must partner with gen. ed. to provide those interventions early on.

43. IDEIA REQUIRES:
Assessment tools and strategies are provided that
directly assist in determining the educational needs of the
child.

44. Proposed Regulations in IDEIA:
The criteria to be considered for adoption by the States:
• May prohibit the use of a severe discrepancy between
intellectual ability and achievement
• May not require the use of a severe discrepancy
between intellectual ability and achievement
• Must permit the use of a process that determines if the
child responds to scientific, research-based intervention
as part of the evaluation procedures
• May permit the use of other alternative research-
based procedures for determining SLD

45. • “Team members” has been replaced with the term “group
members”
• The group is collectively qualified to:
1) conduct individual diagnostic assessments in speech and
language, academic achievement, intellectual development,
and social-emotional development;
2) interpret assessment data, and apply critical analysis to that
data

46. • “Team members” has been replaced with the term “group
members”
• The group is collectively qualified to:
1) conduct individual diagnostic assessments in speech and
language, academic achievement, intellectual development,
and social-emotional development;
2) interpret assessment data, and apply critical analysis to that
data
Assessment data will involve
pre-referral RTI procedures +
other diagnostic tests.
(I.E., CBM/DIBELS and
traditional tests as needed)

47. So…
…now what
do we do?

48. Setting up the
RTI Model in
Schools
What an RTI Model looks like in schools.
How to make RTI work.

49. Comparing Old and New
Paradigms:
Discrepancy Model RTI Model
• Discrepancy between IQ and • Funding for intervention services
Achievement scores increased.
• “Magic Number” eligibility • Provision for some special
• Geographic eligibility education services to be provided
to reg. ed students (i.e., Resource
• Inconsistent regression staff “ok” to work with reg. ed.
• Discriminatory for some Kids during RTI process.)
students • Dual discrepancy model applied
• Difficulty with ELL’s • Instructional integrity
• Attendance discrimination • No broad-scope attendance
discrimination
• Ideal for ELL eligibility
determination
• Geographic Eligibility
phenomenon reduced.

50. RTI Learning Objectives:
• Review What Design Elements Must Be In Place for
Successful RTI
• Describe the Role That Curriculum-Based Measurement
(CBM) Can Play In Determining:
• Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring
• Dual Discrepancies: Educational Need Rate of Progress for
Students Entering the RTI Process
• Evaluating the Effects of Intervention  Eligibility determination

51. Early Intervening Services Provision:
What IDEIA Now Provides
• Greater emphasis on use of early interventions
(research-based)
• School districts will be able to use up to 15% of their total IDEIA federal
funds for early intervening services
These services are to be provided BEFORE they are identified as
having a disability. LEAs have option to conduct this activity.
• Funding may be used for professional development, academic and
behavioral supports.

52. RTI: Official
Permission for
Needs-Based Service
Delivery

53. One approach to RTI—
4 Tier Model
Tier 4—CSE or 504 students
Monitored several times
weekly
Tier 3—1:2 or 1:3 instruction
(remedial reading, AIS, AST)
Monitored weekly
Tier 2—Small Group instruction
(remedial reading, AIS, AST)
Monitored bi-weekly or monthly
Tier 1—Universal screening
General Education
Curriculum

54. CLCS’ approach to RTI—
4 Tier Model
Tier One—Universal Screening
Fall--All students pre-kindergarten through 1st grade
receive early literacy assessment
Pre-K: Get it, Got it, Go! Assessment:
One minute Picture Naming task to measure
vocabulary knowledge
Two minute Alliteration task to measure oral
recognition (with visual cue) of initial sounds
Two Minute Rhyming task to measure oral rhyming
skills (with visual cue)

55. Tier One
• Sample Picture Naming Stimulus
Card
• Front
• Back

56. Tier One
• Pre-Kindergarten
– Alliteration sample cards
– Rhyming sample cards
Dog Frog

57. Get it, Got it, Go!
Get it Got it Go! is part of the
Center for Early Education Development
in the
College of Education and Human Developmen
at the University of Minnesota.
Get it Got it Go! is funded by the U.S.
Department of Education.

58. Get it, Got it, Go!
How to access more information and
download materials:
http://ggg.umn.edu/

59. Tier One
Fall-Kindergarten Universal Screening
AIMSweb Early Literacy Assessments:
www.aimsweb.com
One Minute Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)
One Minute Letter Sound Fluency (LSF)

60. Examiner Copy:
AIMSweb® Letter Naming Fluency - Benchmark
Assessment #1 (Kindergarten - Fall)
Given To: Given By: Date:
U D P S R A X y l n / 10 (10)
C V g W A G J z c E / 10 (20)
Student Copy:
u D P S R A X y l n
C V g W A G J z c E
/ Copyright 2003 Edformation, Inc. All rights reserved.

61. Examiner Copy:
AIMSweb® Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
- Benchmark Assessment #1 (First Grade -
Fall)
Given To: Given By: Date:
sort /s/ /or/ /t/ weight /w/ /ai/ /t/ / 6 (6)
match /m/ /a/ /ch/ touch /t/ /u/ /ch/ / 6 (12)
meal /m/ /ea/ /l/ bee /b/ /ea/ / 5 (17)
put /p/ /uu/ /t/ trees /t/ /r/ /ea/ /z/ / 7 (24)
/ Copyright 2003 Edformation, Inc. All rights
reserved.

62. Tier One
Fall-First Grade Universal Screening
AIMSweb Early Literacy Assessments:
One Minute Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)
One Minute Letter Sound Fluency (LSF)
One Minute Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF)
One Minute Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)

63. Tier One
Fall--All students kindergarten through 1st
grade receive early numeracy assessment
AIMSweb Early Numeracy Assessments:
One minute Oral Counting Fluency
One minute Number Identification Fluency
One minute Missing Number Fluency
One minute Quantity Discrimination Fluency

64. Tier One
Winter and Spring--All students in
kindergarten receive early numeracy
assessment
www.aimsweb.com

65. Early Numeracy Cover Sheet
Quantity Discrimination
7 4 1 4
“Look at this piece of paper in front of you.
The box in front of you has two numbers in
it (demonstrate by pointing). I want you to
tell me the number that is bigger.”

66. Tier One
Fall, Winter, and Spring Benchmark—All
students grade 2nd through 8th grade receive
oral reading fluency assessment
AIMSweb Reading-Curriculum Based
Measurement:
(measured by words read correct and errors in
one minute)

67. Tier One
Winter--All students pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten receive early literacy
assessment
Pre-K: Picture Naming, Rhyming,
Alliteration
Kindergarten: Letter Naming Fluency,
Letter Sound Fluency, Phoneme
Segmentation Fluency

68. Tier One
Spring--All students pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten receive early literacy assessment
Pre-K: Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration
Kindergarten: Letter Naming Fluency, Letter
Sound Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency,
Nonsense Word Fluency

69. Tier One
Fall, Winter, and Spring Benchmark—All
students grade 2nd through 5th grade receive
math computation fluency assessment
AIMSweb Math-Curriculum Based
Measurement:
(measured by digits correct in two minutes on
grade-level computation problems)

70. Tier One
Winter, and Spring Benchmark—All students
in 1st grade receive math computation
fluency assessment
AIMSweb Math-Curriuculum Based
Measurement:
(measured by digits correct in two minutes on
grade-level computation problems

71. Tier Two
Strategic Monitoring
Each elementary classroom teacher does monthly
progress monitoring in reading of 1-2 children that
are borderline average range based on national
AIMSweb data.
We don’t want to wait for benchmark assessment to
ensure that they are making the progress they need
to make!

72. Tier Two
If children indicate at Tier One that they
are below expectations for their grade
level, they move to Tier Two!
Referral typically is made by classroom teacher…

73. Tier Two
Small Group instruction
Remedial reading, AIS, AST
With research-based interventions
Monitored bi-weekly or monthly
By remedial reading teacher or AIS teacher

74. Tier Three
If children indicate at Tier Two
(through progress monitoring of reading or math skills)
that they continue to remain below expectations for their
grade level,
despite research-based interventions
and monthly IST meetings,
they move to Tier Three!
Referral is typically made by classroom teacher through IST
process….

75. Tier Three
1:2 or 1:3 instruction
Remedial reading or AIS
With research-based interventions
Monitored weekly
By reading teacher or AIS teacher

76. Tier Four
If children indicate at Tier Three
(through progress monitoring of reading or math skills)
that they continue to remain below expectations for their
grade level,
despite research-based interventions
and monthly IST meetings,
they move to Tier Four!
Referral is typically made by classroom teacher through IST
process….

77. Tier Four
CSE or 504 students
Research-based interventions implemented
through resource room, Consultant
Teacher model, AIS, or Remedial
Reading
Monitored several times weekly

78. Tier Four
If the student continues
to have difficulty
making progress,
Case Manager refers them to
Instructional Support Team
Or CSE review

79. Design Elements Integral to RTI
Process
• Proactive System Design: A blueprint or model
• Effective and Efficient Teams
• A Range of Evidence-Based Interventions/Instruction
• Procedural Standard Protocols-- Organizing and Documenting Critical
Tasks
• Initial Planning
• When Intervention is Required
• Efficient and Economical Assessment That Provides
• Preventive Progress Monitoring
• Universal Screening
• Identifying Educational Need
• Sensitive Progress Monitoring
6. Reports Documenting/Summarizing the Process and Outcomes

80. Critical Components of
Initial Referral
– Documenting/Describing Referral
– Parental Notification
– Problem Identification Interviews w Teacher(s)
and Parents
– Describing and Observing Current Intervention
– Observing Student-Teacher Interactions
– Collecting Information on Current Educational
Need
• Performance Discrepancies
• Rates of Progress
– Data-Based Decision on Need for Revised
Intervention

81. Critical Components of Intervention
– Plan Intervention schema
– Support and Implement Intervention
– Observe Implementation and Fidelity of
Treatment
– Develop/Implement Progress Monitoring
System
– Implement Progress Monitoring Decision
– Data-Based Decision on Response to Initial
Intervention, Severity of Educational Need,
or Need for Revised Intervention

82. RTI Begins with Using CBM in
Benchmark Assessment
Frequent Evaluation (3 times per year) of Growth and Development Using
R-CBM:
Initial Performance Assessment (IPA) or “Taking Inventory” at the
Beginning of the School Year
1. Identify Students At Risk
2. Instructional Planning
3. Initial Data Point for Progress Monitoring
Accountability
– NCLB and AYP
– Linkages to State Standards

83. Formative Assessment
Formative Assessment: Process of assessing student achievement
during instruction to determine whether an instructional program is
effective for individual students.
●
When students are progressing, keep using your instructional
programs.
●
When tests show that students are not progressing, you can
change your instructional programs in meaningful ways.
●
Has been linked to important gains in student achievement
(L. Fuchs, 1986) with effect sizes of .7 and greater.

84. Systematic formative evaluation requires the use of:
Standard assessment tools…
• That are the same difficulty
• That are Given the same way each time.

87. Using Benchmark Assessment for
SYSTEMATIC Proactive, Early Identification
of At Risk Students

88. Benchmark (Universal)
Monitoring of Progress for All Students

89. Benchmark (Universal)
Screening:
Educational Need?

90. Billy: Benchmark (Universal)
Screening
Educational Need?

91. Benchmark Assessment Supports
Identifying “Dual Discrepancies”
Data-Based Decision Making Begins by Looking for Dual
Discrepancies:
• Educational Need (Discrepancy from Other Students), and
• Lack of Significant Improvement with “Standard” Intervention —
General Education Program

92. Benchmark Progress Monitoring:
Educational Need?

93. Benchmark Progress Monitoring:
DUAL DISCREPANCY & Educational
Need?

94. Dual Discrepancy and Need for
RTI?

95. Dual Discrepancy and Need for RTI?

96. Benchmark Progress Monitoring:
Educational Need?

97. Educational Need?

98. Using CBM at the Point of
Referral
• Benchmark Assessment Brings Existing Data to
the Student Support Team/Child Study Team
• Not All Students Must Endure RTI — Severe
Problems Warrant Immediate Service Need
Decisions
• Strategies Other than Benchmark Assessment
May Be Required

99. John John John
3rd grade 4th grade 5th grader:
Conducting a Survey Level Assessment
passage passage
5th grade passage
62/4 49/7
26/12

100. Use SLA to Prioritize
How Students Can Be Managed
Can We
Provide
Interventions
to Allow
Student to
Benefit from
General
Education?

101. About a Year Behind — Can We Provide Support to Allow Student
to Benefit from General Education?

102. More Severe Educational Need

103. Determining intensity-of-need for RTI:
Referred Students
• Keep It Simple for Less Severe Problems — Use
Next Benchmark
• Set Individualized Goals for Progress
• Create an Intervention Specific Progress
Monitoring Context

104. Benchmark Can Document RTI (mild)

105. Benchmark Insufficient:
Move to Strategic Monitoring (1x/month)

106. Intensive Progress Monitoring
& Goal Setting

107. Current Goal Setting Practices Are Unsatisfying!
Do you like these IEPs?
I do not like these IEPs
I do not like them Jeeze Louise
We test, we check
We plan, we meet
But nothing ever seems complete.
Would you, could you
Like the form?
I do not like the form I see
Not page 1, not 2, not 3
Another change
A brand new box
I think we all
Have lost our rocks!

108. Need Shift to Few But Important Goals
Often Ineffective Goal Smorgasboard!
●
Student will perform spelling skills at a high 3rd grade level.
●
Student will alphabetize words by the second letter with 80% accuracy.
●
Student will read words from the Dolch Word List with 80% accuracy.
●
Student will master basic multiplication facts with 80% accuracy.
●
Student will increase reading skills by progressing through Scribner with
90% accuracy as determined by teacher-made fluency and
comprehension probes by October 2006.
●
To increase reading ability by 6 months to 1 year as measured by the
Woodcock Johnson.
●
Student will make one year's growth in reading by October 2006 as
measured by the Brigance.
●
Student will be a better reader.
●
Student will read aloud with 80% accuracy and 80% comprehension.
●
Student will make one year's gain in general reading from K-3.
●
Students will read 1 story per week.

109. Comply with RTI & IDEIA:
Ensure the Goals are Measurable and Linked to Validated
Formative Evaluation Practices
• Have few, but important goals.
• Goals should be based on quality tests like CBM.
• Based on validated practices such as how often, how many samples, etc.
• Base Goal Setting on Logical Educational Practices

110. Reduce the Number of Goals to a Few Critical Indicators
Reading In (#) weeks (Student name) will read (#)
Words Correctly in 1 minute from randomly
selected Grade (#) passages.
Spelling In (#) weeks (Student name) will write (#)
Correct Letter Sequences and (#) Correct
Words in 2 minutes from randomly selected
Grade (#) spelling lists.
Math Computation In (#) weeks (Student name) will write (#)
Correct Digits in 2 minutes from randomly
selected Grade (#) math problems.
Written Expression In (#) weeks (Student name) will write (#) Total
Words and (#) Correct Writing Sequences when
presented with randomly selected Grade (#)
story starters.

111. When Strategic Monitoring Insufficient…
Move to Intensive Progress Monitoring

112. Formative Evaluation: Are data and a goal enough?

113. Formative Evaluation: Are data, goals & trends enough?

114. Formative Evaluation is Impossible without all data:
Goals Make Progress Decisions Easier

115. Positive Response to Intervention

116. Not Responding to First Intervention

117. Better Response to Intervention

118. A common approach to problems:
Our Beach Ball Analogy to
remediation.
Sometimes we
know there’s a
hole…
..but we don’t
know were it is
or cannot see it.

119. So we throw
patches at the
problem…
…But we wind up using
a lot of expensive
patches and spend a lot
of time patching…
…yet, it still didn’t fix
the hole.

120. Sometimes we’ve found the
hole…
..but we don’t
know how to
fix it.

121. We need to
identify where the
hole is first…
…and patch it
properly.
This means that the
intervention is the right size
and type to fix the problem.
It should also be of quality
and monitored over time to
ensure that it “sticks.”

122. Interventions—Some
thoughts…
Interventions/instruction: Proper
diagnostic work must be done
first. This is a 2-part process:
– Children with academic difficulties
have “Swiss cheese” knowledge.
Unless we know where the “holes”
are, we can never fill them via
appropriate instruction.
– Unless we understand the purpose
and scope of the intervention, we
cannot determine if it will “fill the
holes” in the child’s knowledge.

123. Special Education Eligibility
“We’ve tried ‘everything’ and (Doesn’t this
sound familiar?)
I think the only way to fix it …This sounds as if your
is….” car is destined for nothing
but expensive repairs.
But what if your car was
simply out of gas?
Simple and thorough
diagnostics DONE FIRST
would have saved you a lot
of money and time!

124. SUMMARY: Interventions,
Instruction, and
Eligibility for Special Programs
“Referral is often more a reflection of
teacher stress than a result of carefully
diagnosed student learning deficits.”
Richardson, Casanova, Placier, and Guifoyle (1989)
• Without the proper diagnostics initially, we cannot sufficiently
determine whether Special Education or other restrictive programs
are the only options.
• We need to determine the proper intensity of intervention and
feasibility of maintaining that intervention over the long-term in
general education setting.
• Determine educational benefit of interventions (after proper
diagnostic assessment is done) through formative assessment.

125. Thank you!