Section 5

School Examples, Student Case Studies, and Research Examples
• School Examples, page 5.3
– School-Wide Screening, page 5.4 – Progress Monitoring, page 5.5 – Tiered Service Delivery, page 5.9 – Data-Based Decision Making, page 5.13 – Parent Involvement, page 5.16 – Resources, page 5.22

August 2006

Overview In November 2002, the United States Department of Education requested that the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) identify, describe, and evaluate the implementation of responsiveness to intervention (RTI) in elementary schools throughout the United States. The NRCLD staff worked with the six Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) to identify potential sites and solicit school participation. More than 60 schools across the country initially were considered, and information from 41 of those schools was submitted. The NRCLD research staff reviewed the extensive amount of information submitted and judged that 19 of those schools were engaging in one or more commendable RTI practices based on a review of the following six components of an RTI service-delivery model: • School-wide screening. Screening is a type of assessment characterized by quick, low cost, repeatable testing of critical academic skills or behaviors and can be administered by individuals with minimal amounts of training. A screening measures whether a student should be judged at risk. If a student meets the criteria for at-risk status, he or she is considered for more in-depth assessment. Screenings can use either a criterion referenced or normative comparison standard for measuring student performance. Progress monitoring. Progress monitoring is a set of assessment procedures for determining the extent to which a student or students are benefiting from classroom instruction. When applied with rigor, progress monitoring addresses the federal stipulations that students deemed as having a disability have not benefited from general education instruction. Tiered service delivery. The public health profession long ago adopted a tiered approach to services. This approach can be used to explain RTI tiered service delivery of increasingly intense interventions directed at more specific deficits while targeting smaller segments of the population. In the public health example, the general population receives wellness information about how to stay healthy and receives broad vaccinations. That is considered the first or primary tier of intervention. However, some members of the general population might become ill or, as a result of large-scale screening, might need more specialized treatment. They could be judged as at risk for particular complications. This higher level is considered the secondary level of intervention, which is not provided to the general population but instead is provided for this smaller segment, maybe 10 to 15 percent of the general

• Student Case Studies, page 5.26
– – – – – Bryanna, page 5.26 Jayden, page 5.31 Lauren, page 5.41 Michael, page 5.50 Resources, page 5.57

• Research Study Examples, page 5.62

•

– National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, page 5.62 – Centers for Implementing K-3 Behavior and Reading Intervention Models, page 5.71 – Resources, page 5.76

•

NRCLD is a joint project of researchers at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas. This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education Grant No. H324U010004. Renee Bradley served as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

RTI Manual population. Within this smaller segment, some individuals, roughly 5 percent of the total population, are going to need very specialized interventions. This highest level is called the tertiary level of intervention and by design is the most intense and most costly level of intervention. In the same way we understand that the general population benefits from receiving an optimal health intervention, we can imagine that all students would benefit from closely matching instructional and curricular approaches to their current level of functioning and need. That is the role of tiered service delivery. • Data-based decision making. Accurate implementation requires a shared understanding of options (e.g., choices of interventions) and the basis on which those intervention decisions are made. By having a public, objective, and normative framework of “at risk,” “responsiveness,” and “unresponsiveness,” school staff will have a basis for guiding their decisions. For example, when school staff and parents understand the expected oral reading fluency growth rates, decisions about a student’s responsiveness can be judged more accurately. • Parent involvement. Parent involvement is consistent, organized, and meaningful two-way communication between school staff and parents with regard to student progress and related school activities. This communication allows parents to play an important role in their child’s education.

•

Fidelity of implementation. Fidelity of implementation is the delivery of content and instructional strategies in the way in which they were intended to be delivered. The delivery of instruction must be accurate and consistent. Although interventions are aimed at students, fidelity measures are focused on the individuals who provide the instruction. This section of the RTI Manual profiles information from some of the schools that engage in commendable RTI practices. Part One features schools that have implemented one or more of the RTI components. Part Two describes longitudinal data from individual students who have received services under an RTI delivery model. Part Three describes research studies that have employed RTI models.

5.2

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples

PartExamples One School

Background In this section, we provide school-based examples of five of the six components that are important to the implementation of an RTI service-delivery model. For each of these five components (schoolwide screening, progress monitoring, tiered service delivery, data-based decision making, and parent involvement), we describe one or more schools that use an RTI service-delivery model and each school’s implementation process for the specific component under discussion. The NRCLD staff is particularly grateful and acknowledges the tremendous efforts that numerous school staffs expended in helping prepare these sections on school site examples and individual student descriptions. Their efforts allowed us this opportunity to become informed by their pioneering spirit and achievements. As you read these descriptions, please keep the following points in mind: • Our intent is to describe examples of RTI implementation as illustrative of current practices. These are real-world examples and thus may not reflect the same practices and standards presented in controlled research studies, such as those described on pages 5.62 to 5.76. • Staff members at the schools in which these practices have been implemented generally feel positive about their efforts, their outcomes, and their progress. At the same time, they tend to

view their RTI procedures as a “work in progress.” Staff members we have worked with are reflective and open in their critiques of their practices. They are committed to continued improvement of their RTI implementations. • These descriptions represent a “current status” of implementation, not an ideal. We want to discourage the conclusion that other schools need only replicate or adopt what is described in this section. • Due to numerous resource limitations, we have not sufficiently provided the contextual information about the decision-making, the intended outcomes, the development phases, costs, or even the significant staff development activities that supported each implementation. Such details are critical to understanding, evaluating, and promoting the policies, procedures, and practices reflected in the descriptions that follow. We urge you to reflect on these descriptions deliberately and carefully weigh this information so that if you choose to use the information provided, the decision to do so is made in the context of this incomplete information. Note: For more information about the instructional programs and assessments mentioned in this section, see pages 5.22-5.25.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

5.3

RTI Manual

School-Wide Screening
Jefferson Elementary School Pella, Iowa (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Jefferson Elementary School has a total enrollment of 500 students, with two sections each of kindergarten through third grade and six sections each of fourth and fifth grades. Nearly equal numbers of girls and boys attend the school. About 14 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, and about 6.6 percent are served in special education. Five percent of the students are minority students, 95 percent are Caucasian, and six students are English language learners (ELL). Jefferson Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, and special education. Screening in reading Kindergartners and first-graders are screened using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments in the fall, winter, and spring. The school also uses DIBELS fluency and accuracy assessments for students in the second and third grades and Fuchs’ fluency and accuracy assessments for students in the fourth and fifth grades. In addition to the fluency and accuracy measures, students in the second through fifth grades are assessed with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) in November and the Gates-McGinitie assessment in April. (Second graders are also given the Gates-McGinitie in October.) Jefferson Elementary also uses a variety of assessments to measure specific district benchmarks. Screening data and reference points When analyzing students’ screening data, the school uses reference points, not specific cut scores. The reference points are used to indicate whether a student is performing below expectations and to guide school staff members as they determine appropriate interventions for students. The reference points, or scores, match up with proficiency scores of standardized tests. No single score stands alone in determining interventions for students, but rather data from multiple sources (benchmark scores, fluency screenings, DIBELS, ITBS, Gates-McGinitie) are used to deter5.4 Jefferson Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population 95%

50% 50% 14%
Boys Girls

5%
Cauca- Minority sian

6.6%

1%
ELL (n=6)

Free/ Special Reduced Education Lunch

Total enrollment=500, K-5

mine which students need instruction beyond Tier 1 and which interventions will be most effective in meeting student needs. Progress monitoring data also guide the determination of the effectiveness of the interventions. Fluency norms Fluency norms are based on norms set by Houghton Mifflin, Jefferson’s reading series. DIBELS probes are used for students in kindergarten through third grades, and Letter Sound Fluency Tests are used for students in fourth and fifth grades. To be considered to be making satisfactory progress, students at all grade levels must have 95 percent accuracy (total words correct/total words read) on the fluency probes. Charts are used to indicate words correct per minute on a one-minute timed reading. Literacy day sessions and data The Literacy Team, which includes general and special education teachers, Reading Plus teachers, Area Educational Agency staff, the curriculum director, and the principal, meets three times a year for Literacy Day sessions. These sessions occur just after district-wide student screenings and allow team members to review the district-wide screening data as well as data from the other school-wide screening measures. Data are then used to make necessary changes to current student interventions and to identify students who require more individualized and more intensive interventions.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
For example, a Literacy Day Data sheet for a fifth-grade class would include the names of the students in the left-hand column and scores earned by each of those students on September fluency and accuracy measures and the Gates-McGinitie comprehension and vocabulary tests. A companion sheet, Literacy Day Notes, would also be used during meeting discussions. Again, student names would be in the left-hand column with adjacent columns for noting the student’s areas of need, current interventions, and comments. As discussion progresses during the sessions, changes are made based on student data, students with skill deficits are considered for services, and students with extension needs are considered for gifted and talented placement. RTI screening challenges Time. Time is a big issue when conducting school-wide screenings. Jefferson Elementary staff members have trained a group of volunteers to administer fluency and accuracy screenings to reduce the time teachers spend on assessments. They also use associates and Central College students to help in various ways. Appropriate screening materials. School staff members also appreciate the challenge of determining appropriate screening materials. They agree that some choices (e.g., ITBS) are easy; more difficult to find are screening assessments to match the skills for which they want to screen. Another challenge is to acquire and use multiple sources of data to help validate skill deficits. Data-based decision making. Using the data to make appropriate decisions regarding interventions has also been a challenge for Jefferson Elementary staff. After being collected, data must be stored and sorted so they can be easily analyzed. While analyzing the data, decisions must be made about how to provide interventions to students when no current program matches their needs.

Progress Monitoring
Cornell Elementary School Des Moines, Iowa (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Cornell Elementary School’s enrollment consists of 440 students in preschool through third grade. Nearly 43 percent (187) of those students receive free or reduced lunch. Thirty-two students are served in special education, and five are English language learners (ELL). Cornell Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Progress monitoring in the core curriculum Within the core curriculum, progress monitoring is recommended if a student is new to the district and the initial assessment shows at-risk performance, if a student has previously received supplemental or intervention support and is now performing at benchmark level, or if a teacher has concerns about the amount of progress a student is making. For these students, progress is monitored weekly using DIBELS measures. School staff assess kindergartners’ initial sound fluency in the fall and their phoneme segmentation fluency in the winter. For first-gradCornell Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population

43%

7%
Free/ Special Reduced Education Lunch

1%
ELL (n=5)

Total enrollment=440, Pre-K-5

ers, nonsense word fluency is assessed in the fall; oral reading fluency is assessed in the spring. School staff use oral reading fluency measures for secondand third-graders three times a year. Core outcomes: next steps Progress monitoring in the core curriculum will be discontinued for those students who score at or above the benchmark performance level. School
5.5

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

RTI Manual staff will further analyze the performance of students who score below the benchmark performance, with the goal of matching instruction to student need. These students may remain in the core curriculum with changes to instruction/practice or may be placed in core plus supplemental support. Planning supplemental support Options considered when planning supplemental support and matching students’ needs with the appropriate type and intensity of resources and instruction include the following: • more instructional or practice time • smaller instructional groups • more precisely targeted instruction at the right level • more explicit explanations • more systematic instructional sequences • more extensive opportunities for guided practice • more opportunities for corrective feedback Progress monitoring for core plus supplemental instruction For students who receive supplemental instruction, progress is monitored often twice each week rather than only once as with the core curriculum. School staff use DIBELS measures to assess kindergartners’ initial sound fluency in the fall and their phoneme segmentation fluency in the winter. Staff members assess first-graders’ nonsense word fluency in the fall and oral reading fluency in the spring. For second-graders, oral reading fluency is assessed; for third-graders both oral reading fluency and retell fluency are assessed. Core plus supplemental outcomes: next steps For students whose slope of performance is on the goal line or who are scoring at or above the benchmark performance level, two options are considered: • a return to core instruction with progress monitoring occurring weekly • continuing to receive core plus supplemental instruction For students who have four consecutive reading probe data points below the established goal line, who are scoring below the benchmark performance, or whose slope of performance falls below the goal line (trend line), three options are considered: • further analysis or assessment • continuing in core plus supplemental support with changes • core plus supplemental instruction plus intervention(s) Planning supplemental support Options considered when planning instructional support and interventions for struggling students include the following: • more instructional time • smaller instructional groups • more precisely targeted instruction at the right level • more explicit explanations • more systematic instructional sequences • more extensive opportunities for guided practice • more opportunities for corrective feedback. Progress monitoring challenges Follow-up coaching and support. For Cornell Elementary School, one of the greatest challenges continues to be ensuring the fidelity of follow-up coaching and support for supplemental and intervention-level instruction in vocabulary and comprehension. Fidelity. An additional challenge for this school staff is ensuring continued fidelity of implementation of supplemental and intervention-level instruction over time. Time. Finding additional instruction and practice time (core plus supplemental plus intervention) without sacrificing other core academic subjects remains a challenge.

5.6

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Dalton Gardens Elementary School Dalton Gardens, Idaho (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Dalton Gardens Elementary School’s enrollment consists of 411 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Of those students, 55 percent are male. The number of classes for each grade is as follows: kindergarten–two; first grade–two; second grade– three; third grade–three; fourth grade–three; and fifth grade–two. Nineteen percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Ninety-three percent of the students are Caucasian (not Hispanic), with the remaining 7 percent being nearly equally represented by Asian, Hispanic, and African-American students. Fifteen students are served in special education, and one student is an English language learner (ELL). Dalton Gardens Elementary’s responsivenessto-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Reading groups In second through fifth grades, the children are placed in skills-based groups to maximize reading instruction. Progress monitoring at Tier 2 To monitor the progress of students working at a level below that of their peers, school staff use DIBELS and Read Naturally weekly. DIBELS is used for fluency monitoring – letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency for students in first grade; nonsense word fluency and oral reading fluency for students in second grade; and oral reading fluency for students in third through fifth grades. Read Naturally is used to practice and monitor fluency and to assess comprehension. Outcomes at Tier 2: next steps If a student is making progress, school staff continue all interventions and continue to monitor progress. If a student is not making progress, school staff choose a course of action that could include • pre-teaching lessons in a small group just before the lesson • decreasing the number of students per teacher using teaching assistants or special education teachers to work with small groups • adding small-group and one-on-one instruction to a student’s day
Dalton Gardens Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population 93%

55% 45% 19% 7%
Cauca- Asian, sion Hispanic, AfricanAmerican Boys Girls

3%
Free/ Special Reduced Education Lunch

< 1%
ELL (n=1)

Total enrollment=411, K-5

•

placing students who need additional assistance in a staff-supported study hall

Progress monitoring at Tier 3 To monitor the progress of students working at the Tier 3 level, Dalton Gardens continues with the same measures and cut points used for progress monitoring at Tier 2: letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency for students in first grade; nonsense word fluency and oral reading fluency for students in second grade; and oral reading fluency for students in third through fifth grades. Outcomes for Tier 3: next steps If a student is making progress, school staff continue all interventions and continue to monitor progress. If a student is not making progress, school staff answer the following four questions to make their decision about entitlement: • Is there resistance to general education interventions? • Are resources beyond those available in the general education curriculum necessary to enable the child to participate and progress in the general education curriculum? • Is there evidence of severe discrepancy between student’s performance and peers’ performance in the area of concern? • Is there a convergence of evidence that logically and empirically supports the team’s decision?

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

5.7

RTI Manual on both the IRI and ISAT, even after interventions, it is likely that the student will be given Tier 2 instruction, with the hope of improvement on state assessments and class work. What decision rules are used for progress monitoring? If a student has three data points that are above the aim line, Dalton staff either continue with the interventions or increase the student’s goal. If a student has three data points below the aim line, Dalton staff change the intervention by changing the targeted skill or by increasing the amount of time spent with the intervention(s). If a student continues Additional information about specific to have data points below the aim line (again, the decision rules Specific decision rules. Dalton Gardens Elemen- three data points rule is used), school staff will work tary School uses specific cut scores that are provided with the student in a smaller group (two to three stuby the state for the Idaho Standards Achievement dents) or will work with the student one-on-one. The RTI process at Dalton Gardens Elementary Tests (ISAT) and the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI). Decisions about next steps are made at the individ- School is child-centered. School staff members look ual level. Staff members look at the students indi- at the students individually and plan for them individually; a team meets every nine weeks to discuss vidually. They recognize that all children are differprogress, look at graphs, and decide what the next ent and what might work for one may not work for another. They try to do what is best for each child steps for an individual student should be. What decision rules about a student’s scores on individually. If several students fit into a group, the screening assessments lead to a student being then that is great for school staff, but the school will placed in Tier 2 instruction? The state provides the provide interventions one-on-one, if needed. DalIRI and ISAT cut scores to Dalton. During a team ton staff provide early intervention and put a great meeting, the team discusses the student’s scores on amount of effort into the interventions with the goal these state assessments and determines whether the of having students working at grade level, with the scores match the student’s work in the classroom realization that some students need sustained interand whether there are concerns about this student. If ventions and instruction in a different setting. a student continues to score below basic proficiency Progress monitoring challenges Dalton Gardens Elementary School staff continue to be challenged by: • Who does the progress monitoring? • When will it get done in an already busy day? • Is DIBELS being used with fidelity? • Are staff members all doing progress monitoring the same way? (Staff members have been trained at different times and by different people.)

5.8

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples

Tiered Service Delivery
Rosewood Elementary School Vero Beach, Florida (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Rosewood Elementary School’s enrollment consists of 549 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Each grade level comprises four or five classes. Of the total students, 165 (30 percent) are receiving free or reduced lunch, 14 are English language learners (ELL), and 69 (including 16 gifted) are served in special education. Rosewood Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Core classroom instruction: Tier 1 The goal of Tier 1 instruction is to maximize the learning for all students using a strong research-based core curriculum to ensure that students meet gradelevel standards. The general education teacher uses Harcourt Trophies for reading instruction during an uninterrupted two-hour block each day. Instruction is with the whole class and also with small groups of seven to 10 students each. The general education teacher assesses the students with DIBELS (kindergartners and first-graders) and the Harcourt Holistic assessment (first-graders through fifth-graders). In general, students in all tiers receive two hours of reading instruction each day, although the length of time spent with reading instruction varies depending on the needs of the student. In Tier 2, group size decreases and instruction is more targeted and specific. Students in Tier 3 may receive extra instructional time to address individual needs, and the staff member who provides the instruction varies. Staff members involved in Tier 3 instruction include the general education teacher, reading coach, student support specialist, elementary specialist, school psychologist, exceptional student education (ESE) teacher, and speech-language pathologist. Instruction takes place in the general education classroom. Instruction at Tier 2 Students involved in Tier 2 instruction are those students not reaching grade-level reading standards. The goal of Tier 2 instruction is to diagnose academic concerns and systematically apply research-based
Rosewood Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population

30% 13% 2%
Free/ Reduced Lunch Special Education ELL (n=14)

Total enrollment=549, K-5

small-group instruction to enable student performance to reach or exceed grade-level standards. The academic improvement plan team, which includes the general education teacher, the reading coach, and the elementary specialist, are all involved with the instruction, which takes place in the general education classroom. Instructional materials include the Harcourt Trophies Intervention Program with American Federation of Teacher’s Educational Research & Dissemination “Five-Step Plan,” Earobics, Road to the Code, Great Leaps, and Quick Reads. Tier 2 instruction is conducted for two hours in both whole and small-group instruction. Small-group size ranges from five to seven students. This instruction occurs during the same time frame as Tier 1; however, small-group instruction is more targeted and specific. Screening assessments for Tier 2 include DIBELS (kindergarten and first grade) and Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency (second through fifth grade). Diagnostic assessments for Tier 2 instruction include Fox in a Box (kindergarten through second grade) and Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (third through fifth grade). School staff monitor student progress using Harcourt Holistic assessments (first through fifth grades) and specific assessments for individual interventions. Professional development related to Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction is offered through district workshops scheduled for early release Wednesdays every
5.9

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

RTI Manual two weeks and through Professional Learning Communities. District workshops cover the five components of balanced reading. The Professional Learning Communities at Rosewood include the following: kindergarten–interactive writing; first grade– fluency; second grade–comprehension (author’s purpose and comparison and contrast benchmarks); third grade–expository text strategies for references and research strand; fourth grade–reading comprehension (main idea); and fifth grade–comprehension targeting reference and research and main idea. Instruction at Tier 3 Instruction in Tier 3 is focused on those students who do not respond to Tier 2 instruction, with the goal of providing intensive, individualized or smallgroup, research-based instruction and intervention to eliminate the discrepancies between student performance and grade-level expectations. Staff members involved in Tier 3 instruction include the general education teacher, reading coach, student support specialist, elementary specialist, school psychologist, ESE teacher, and speech-language pathologist. Instruction takes place in the general education classroom for two hours a day with additional extra time as needed to address individual student needs. Tier 3 instruction is usually done oneon-one; small-group instruction consists of groups of five students or fewer. Instructional materials include the Harcourt Trophies Intervention Program with American Federation of Teacher’s Educational Research & Dissemination “Five-Step Plan,” Earobics, Road to the Code, Great Leaps, and Quick Reads. Individual interventions are used to address specific areas of concern. School staff monitor progress weekly using DIBELS, AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency, or AIMSweb MAZE. Professional development is extensive, as described in Tiers 1 and 2, and also includes Student Support Team staff development on problem solving and progress monitoring. Instruction at Tier 4 (special education) Tier 4 (special education) instruction provides sustained intensive support through a targeted curriculum for eligible students who need it to progress toward grade-level expectations. The general education teacher and the ESE teacher share responsibilities for instruction, which takes place in the general education classroom and in the ESE classroom. Instructional materials include the Harcourt Interven5.10

tion Program and Wilson Reading; these are used on an individual basis or in small groups of no more than five students. Instructional blocks of time are two hours in length plus any additional time that is needed to implement instruction and interventions. Assessments include those used in other tiers plus progress monitoring using AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency and Maze. Professional development includes all the general education offerings plus training on specific curricula and progress monitoring. Also included in the professional development activities are the following Professional Learning Communities: Behavior Management Techniques and Strategies to Enhance Academic Performance. Decision rules for Tier 2 and Tier 3 A student should move from Tier 1 to Tier 2 if screening assessments indicate that the student is not meeting benchmark(s), the student’s classroom grades are below average, or the classroom teacher formally requests assistance. A student should leave Tier 2 and return to Tier 1 if she or he is meeting benchmarks and course work is on grade level. Tier 2 instruction generally lasts for nine weeks. However, a student may move to Tier 3 sooner if progress is not being made. This unresponsiveness is indicated by a lack of progress toward intervention goals such as three consecutive data points below the aim line. A student should move to Tier 3 if the student shows inadequate progress with Tier 2 interventions (three data points below the aim line) but should return to Tier 2 from Tier 3 if the student has mastered the goals and can maintain the rate of progress with Tier 2 support. A student should continue with Tier 3 instruction when progress predicts grade-level performance within a year and if inadequate progress indicates a need to modify or redesign the intervention. Decision rules for special education (Tier 4) Special education (Tier 4) should be considered when the targeted goal is not met or the student’s trend line is below the aim line after implementing two or more interventions. Special education (Tier 4) also should be considered when a positive response in Tier 3 requires an intensity of resources not available in general education. State regulations continue to require ability-achievement discrepancy for eligibility. Response to intervention data are used as evidence of educational need and for educational programming.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
What Rosewood is learning through its RTI implementation Need to shift from “eligibility” to “solving the problem.” Rosewood staff members have learned that they need to continue the shift from making the child eligible to solving the child’s learning problem. They believe that this may be best accomplished one teacher at a time. Importance of instructor coaching. They have also learned that coaching is the key to faithful implementation of interventions and to teachers feeling supported. Tiered service delivery challenges Development of a bank of evidence-based activities. Rosewood needs to develop a “bank” of evidence-based activities to ensure quality interventions. Finding manpower and resources. Rosewood needs to think “outside the box” to find the necessary manpower and resources to carry out interventions and progress monitoring. Quest for accommodations for standardized testing vs. the model. Rosewood believes that the desire to obtain accommodations for standardized testing works against this model. Additional information about specific decision rules The processes used at Rosewood Elementary are the result of years of researching, learning, searching, and experimenting, and staff still do not think that they have all the answers. RTI is a learning process, and staff members believe they are doing a better job of helping students, but they know they still have a great deal to learn.

Northstar Elementary School Knoxville, Iowa (Spring 2006) Overview & demographics Enrollment at Northstar Elementary School consists of 350 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Each grade level comprises three classes. Of the total student population, 133 students (38 percent) receive free or reduced lunch, one student is an English language learner (ELL), and 32 students are served in special education. Northstar Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Tier 1: core classroom instruction Reading instruction in Tier 1 (core classroom instruction) is for all students and takes place in the general education classroom. The kindergarten teachers use Read Well; the first-grade general education teachers use Read Well, Open Court, and Write Well. Teachers in grades two through five use Open Court. Reading instruction for students in kindergarten through third grade is provided five days each week for two and a half hours each day; for students in grades four and five, reading instruction is provided one and a half hours each day. General education teachers use DIBELS, Iowa Test of Basic Skills,
Northstar Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population

38% 9%
Free/ Reduced Lunch Special Education

< 1%
ELL (n=1)

Total enrollment=350, K-5

Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test, Basic Reading Inventory, Open Court unit tests, and Read Well for student assessments. Staff members involved with Tier 1 reading include the classroom teachers, Title I teachers, and the reading specialist. Professional development for core classroom instruction focuses on Open Court, provided by the company consultant, and on Read Well. Tier 2: instruction Reading instruction in Tier 2 is supplemental
5.11

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

RTI Manual instruction for students identified as “strategic,” a designation based on DIBELS criteria and synonymous with the DIBELS “Some Risk” cut score, if that score is an intended benchmark at the time the test is given. The curriculum and instruction in Tier 2 are based on an analysis of student need. Materials and programs used for Tier 2 instruction include REWARDS, Read Naturally, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), Corrective Reading, Six-Minute Solution, Reading Mastery, and Quick Reads. Tier 2 instruction is provided in addition to the core reading instruction and occurs for 45 to 60 minutes each day, three to five days per week, in the general education classroom or the reading room. The assessments used to measure Tier 2 progress are the same as those used during core instruction, with additional assessments used as needed (weekly probes, error analysis, and running records, for example). The staff members who work with students in Tier 2 include classroom teachers, Title I teachers, the reading specialist, associates (personnel hired to assist teachers in helping students), and special teachers (art, music, physical education). Northstar Elementary has three building associates and one Title I associate. Professional development for Tier 2 instruction focuses on Open Court, provided by the company consultant; Read Well; and Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). Tier 3: instruction Reading instruction in Tier 3 consists of supplemental instruction for students identified as “intensive,” a designation based on DIBELS criteria and synonymous with the DIBELS “At Risk” cut score, if that score is an intended benchmark at the time the test is given. The curriculum and instruction in Tier 3 are based on an analysis of student need. Tier 3 instruction differs from Tier 2 in that the group size may be smaller, more time is spent on instruction, and the instruction is more intensive. Programs include REWARDS, Read Naturally, PALS, Corrective Reading, Six-Minute Solution, Reading Mastery, and Quick Reads. Tier 3 instruction is provided in addition to core reading instruction and occurs for 60 minutes each day, five days a week, in the general education classroom or in the reading room. Assessments used to measure Tier 3 progress are the same as those used during core instruction, with additional assessments (such as weekly probes, error analysis, and running records) used as needed. Students in Tier 3 may be assessed more frequently than students in Tier 2. Staff members who work with students in Tier 3 include classroom teachers, Title I teachers, the reading specialist, associates, special teachers, and special education teachers. Professional development for Tier 3 instruction focuses on Open Court, provided by the company consultant; Read Well; and LETRS. Decision rules about movement to and from tiers 2 and 3 School staff members base the decision to move a student to Tier 2 instruction based on weekly progress monitoring, individual goals, and research-determined expected growth rates. If it is determined that a student cannot be successful in the core general education classroom, he or she may be moved to Tier 2. Those students who are able to be successful in the core general education classroom remain or return there. Similarly, school staff members base the decision to move a student to Tier 3 instruction on weekly progress monitoring, individual goals, and research-determined expected growth rates. If it is determined that a student cannot be successful in Tier 2, he or she may be moved to Tier 3. Groups are very fluid and flexible; students often move among tiers throughout the year. Students are continually monitored regardless of tier and are moved based on their needs. Special education decisions Students who are resistive to intervention support are considered for special education. These students may demonstrate slower rates of progress and significant discrepancy from average peers and may have needs beyond what general education can support without additional resources. Northstar Elementary identifies students for special education based on need rather than on disability.

5.12

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples

Data-Based Decision Making
Blue Ball Elementary School Blue Ball, Pennsylvania (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Blue Ball Elementary School enrolls 393 students in kindergarten through sixth grade, with two classes for each grade. Of the total student population, 21 percent receive free or reduced lunch, 26 students are served in special education, and eight students are English language learners (ELL). Blue Ball Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Assessment data used in decision making: Tier 1 Within Tier 1, kindergartners are assessed three times. Assessments used include Curriculum Based Measurement-math, DIBELS (reading), letter identification, Concepts About Print, and a fall writing sample. In first grade (Tier 1), assessment data is gathered three times from DIBELS, text level reading, fall writing sample, and four AIMSWeb measures: oral counting, number identification, missing numbers, and quantity discrimination. Secondgrade students take the following assessments three times during the year: DIBELS, Degrees of Reading Power (DRP), fall writing sample, and Monitoring Basic Skills Progress in math skills and computation. Assessments for students in Tier 1, grades three through six, are the same, occur three times per year, and consist of DIBELS, 4Sight Reading and Math assessment, Degrees of Reading Power, fall writing sample, and Monitoring Basic Skills Progress in math skills and computation. Assessment data used in decision making: Tier 2 Assessment data for Tier 2 are collected more frequently than for Tier 1 - either weekly (for students needing and receiving intensive support) or monthly (for students needing and receiving strategic, or supplemental, support). Kindergarten measures are DIBELS, letter identification, Concepts About Print, and fall writing sample. Tier 2 assessments for grades one through six are the same as those for Tier 1, but they, as for the other assessments in Tier 2, occur either weekly or monthly rather than just three times per year.
Blue Ball Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population

21% 6%
Free/ Reduced Lunch Special Education

2%
ELL (n=8)

Total enrollment=393, K-6

Assessment data used in decision making: Tier 3 Tier 3 kindergarten assessments occur weekly and consist of DIBELS and four AIMSWeb measures: oral counting, number identification, missing numbers, and quantity discrimination. Tier 3 measures for grades one through six also occur weekly and consist of four AIMSWeb assessments: oral reading fluency (ORF), MAZE, math, and written expression. Assessment data used in decision making: Special education Kindergarten through sixth-grade students in the special education tier are assessed with CORE Phonics and Phonological Segmentation twice a year, reading comprehension oral retell once a month, and Precision Teaching daily. In addition, kindergartners in special education are assessed with five AIMSWeb measures: written expression, oral counting, number identification, missing numbers, and quantity discrimination. Additional measures for students in grades one through six are four AIMSWeb assessments: oral reading fluency, MAZE, math, and written expression. Using screening and progress monitoring data All screening data are reviewed in late September or early October at grade-level team meetings.
5.13

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

RTI Manual
Students are identified as “advanced/benchmark,” “strategic,” or “intensive” in reading and math. Students identified as strategic or intensive are those students whose scores on screening measures fall below the 25th percentile. Strategic and intensive students move to Tier 2 instructional groupings (small groups), and the grade-level teachers develop an intervention plan to address their needs. The progress of strategic students is monitored every month; the progress of intensive students is monitored every week. Intensive students whose progress remains on or above the aim line remain at the Tier 2 level. Intensive students whose progress falls below the aim line (student trend line is below the goal line) are moved to Tier 3, where they will receive Tier 3 interventions. After five weeks, students’ progress monitoring graphs are reviewed to determine whether interventions or group structure need to be refined. Remaining in and moving from tier 2 Students at all grades may remain at the Tier 2 level until they achieve proficiency on progress monitoring measures or if their progress remains below the aim line for five weeks. Students move from Tier 2 back to Tier 1 if they score in the proficient range on progress monitoring measures. A student leaves Tier 2 and moves to Tier 3 when fall screening data indicate partial proficiency on all measures of a skill area, i.e., all reading measures or all math measures, or when progress monitoring data remain below the aim line for five weeks. Remaining in and moving from tier 3 For all grade levels, Tier 3 interventions continue for 10 to 20 weeks. If, after 10 weeks, a student receiving Tier 3 interventions achieves the target intervention goal, he or she will move to Tier 2. Students move back to Tier 1 upon achieving proficiency on Tier 2 progress monitoring measures. If, after 10 to 20 weeks of Tier 3 intervention, a student’s progress trend line continues to fall below the goal line or if a positive response requires an intensity of resources not available in general education, parent permission is sought to consider the student for special education services. Remaining in and moving from special education Students receive special education services until they are able to achieve the individualized criteria established in the IEP.

Tualatin Elementary School Tualatin, Oregon (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Tualatin Elementary School enrolls 522 students in kindergarten through fifth grade, with three to four classrooms per grade. Nearly 50 percent (260) of the students receive free or reduced lunch. Sixtyfive students are served in special education (15 are identified as having a learning disability), and 160 are English language learners (ELL). Tualatin Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Effective Behavior and Instructional Support (EBIS) organizing model Tualatin Elementary uses a continuum of school-wide instructional and positive behavior support. Primary prevention systems are school- and classroom-wide for all students, staff, and settings.
5.14 Tualatin Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population

50% 31% 12%
Free/ Reduced Lunch Special Education ELL (n=160)

Total enrollment=522, K-5

All students receive quality behavior and academic instruction and support; all are screened for instructional needs in the fall, winter, and spring. Examples of data that are gathered three times a year include

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
DIBELS, Oregon State Assessments, and data involving attendance, behavior, and counseling referrals. About 20 percent of the students qualify for secondary prevention, which involves specialized group systems for at-risk students. These students receive small-group interventions. About 5 percent of students qualify for tertiary prevention, which is specialized individualized systems that are in place for students at high risk. Students in this group receive further individualized interventions. Individualize Instruction Rule. When a student fails to progress after two consecutive small-group interventions, individual instruction begins. Refer for Special Education Evaluation Rule. When a student fails to progress after two consecutive individually-designed interventions, the student is referred for special education evaluation.

Progress monitoring and instructional decision making Decisions about future instruction are based on progress monitoring results: Example structure • If the group intervention has been successful, The EBIS Team meets weekly. Team members the student may no longer need small-group ininclude the school principal, counselor, literacy spestruction. cialist, special education teacher, ELL specialists, • If the intervention appears to be working for the and classroom teacher representatives from each student, the intervention should be continued as grade level. The team monitors all students who reis. ceive small-group and individual interventions. The • If the group intervention is not working for the team also oversees RTI fidelity and makes referrals student, the intervention should be revised or reto special education. fined. The EBS (Effective Behavior Support) Team • If the group intervention is highly unlikely to be meets twice monthly to plan and implement schoolsuccessful for the student, a more individualized wide supports. approach is needed. Grade-level teams meet monthly. At each meetAn example: A young student named Daisy is ing, team members use data to evaluate the core pro- participating in the general curriculum but is not dogram, plan initial interventions for the “20 percent ing well. The EBIS Team reviews Daisy’s screengroup,” and monitor student progress. Grade-level ing data; from the data review, the team decides to teams also report to the EBIS Team. place Daisy in a group intervention. Daisy does not Content-area teams meet every month to recom- improve, and the EBIS Team designs an individual mend curriculum and instructional improvements intervention for Daisy. Had Daisy improved with across all content areas. the group intervention, she would have resumed the Individual Student Case Management imple- general program. ments intensive interventions and monitors student Because Daisy continues to show no improveprogress within the RTI process. ment with the first individual intervention, the EBIS Team designs a second individual intervention for Decision rules her. Had Daisy shown good improvement with the Eighty Percent Decision Rule. If less than 80 first individual intervention, the team would deterpercent of the Tualatin students are meeting bench- mine whether (1) other factors are suspected as the marks, Tualatin staff review the core program(s). cause for her poor response to general and group inTwenty Percent Decision Rule. Students below struction or (2) the individual intervention needed the 20th percentile in academic skills or with chron- to be given at such an intense level that a learning ic behavior needs (more than five absences or more disability might be suspected. In the latter case, a than three counseling or discipline referrals in a 30- special education referral is initiated. day period) are placed in small-group instruction. Daisy still does not show improvement when Change Small Group or Individual Intervention she is given instruction with a second individual inRule. When progress data are below the aim line tervention. At this point, a special education referral on three consecutive days, or when six data points is initiated. produce a flat or decreasing trend line, school staff change the intervention.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

5.15

RTI Manual

Parent Involvement
Dalton Gardens Elementary School Dalton Gardens, Idaho (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Dalton Gardens Elementary School’s enrollment consists of 411 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Of those students, 55 percent are male. The number of classes for each grade is as follows: kindergarten–two; first grade–two; second grade– three; third grade–three; fourth grade–three; and fifth grade–two. Nineteen percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Ninety-three percent of the students are Caucasian (not Hispanic), with the remaining 7 percent being nearly equally represented by Asian, Hispanic, and African-American students. Fifteen students are served in special education, and one student is an English language learner (ELL). Dalton Gardens Elementary’s responsivenessto-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Ensuring that parents feel welcome and comfortable in the school setting Parents of students with an intervention plan (Iplan) are involved from the initial I-plan meeting. Before this meeting, the classroom teacher makes the initial contact with the parents. The contact may be by phone or at a parent-teacher conference. Just before the meeting, the classroom teacher meets the parents by the school office, assists them with checking in, and gives them a brief overview of how the meeting is expected to go and who will attend. The Dalton Gardens Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) Team attends these meetings. Members of the RTI Team include the principal, counselor, psychologist, speech-language pathologist (if needed), general education representative (Dalton Gardens has one primary representative and one intermediate representative), special education teacher, and referring teacher. At the beginning of the meeting, formal introductions are conducted by the meeting facilitator, usually the principal. The classroom teacher then presents information about the student to the parents and to the team members. During the meeting, team members try to be “jargon-busters” if there are
5.16 Dalton Gardens Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population 93%

55% 45% 19% 7%
Cauca- Asian, sion Hispanic, AfricanAmerican Boys Girls

3%
Free/ Special Reduced Education Lunch

< 1%
ELL (n=1)

Total enrollment=411, K-5

terms or acronyms used that the parents may not understand. Ensuring that parents are involved in all phases of the rti process and receive active support for participation at school and at home School staff members are aware that parents often have unique insights about their child’s strengths and weaknesses and are frequently eager to help with interventions at home. When parents offer to do interventions at home with their child, the parents are noted on the I-plan as interventionists. Dalton Gardens has had parents come to the school to volunteer so they could observe the interventions in place and help with other students’ interventions. Dalton Gardens staff also give parents ideas and materials that they can use at home – for example, flash cards, reading passages with which their child can practice fluency, grammar worksheets, etc. If a parent suggests a certain intervention, Dalton Gardens staff members are open to considering the intervention if it is something that can be provided by the staff. When parents have a suggestion, it is often something they would like to do at home. Parents are invited to all meetings about their child, although Dalton Gardens staff members do meet without parents if they are unwilling to attend.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Parental notification Included in a student’s I-plan is a description of the child’s problem, clear and unambiguous documentation about the child’s difficulties, a written description of the specific intervention(s), clearly stated intervention goal(s), and a long-range timeline for the plan and its implementation. (Student timelines can vary widely.) Every nine weeks, Dalton Gardens RTI Team members meet to discuss students with I-plans and to decide to discontinue the I-plan (because goals have been met), continue current interventions, change the interventions, or refer the student to special education. Parents are invited to attend these meetings. Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the child’s plan, implementation, and timeline Dalton Gardens staff members have found that, because the parents are so impressed with the RTI and I-plan process and because of the willingness of the team to do whatever it takes to help their child, parents do not have many complaints and it is easy to reach a mutual agreement. If parents do have concerns, the school staff address them immediately and try to work with parents to make satisfactory changes. Frequent and consistent parent-staff communication Dalton Gardens staff inform parents about RTI through presentations at Parent-Teacher Association meetings and through the school newsletter. At PTA meetings, school staff give a brief overview of RTI that includes basic information about RTI and the RTI process. The principal sends information about RTI to parents several times a year. Follow-up meetings focused on student progress occur every nine weeks. If a problem comes up between meeting times, staff will call an emergency meeting to discuss the problem and the next step. The child’s classroom teacher invites parents to all meetings. Dalton Gardens Elementary distributes a survey to families each March to solicit feedback from parents about all the school programs, including RTI. Progress data sent frequently to parents Progress monitoring data are usually sent home weekly, if parents request it. Many parents trust that school staff will keep them informed if there is a problem. Many students who are showing good progress on their graphs ask to take a copy home to show their families. Written materials to inform parents of the right to ask for a special education evaluation at any time Parents are not given any written information formally, but during past meetings, parents have asked for testing. In these cases, the special education teacher steps in with the appropriate paperwork for parents to read and sign. If a parent asks for testing during a meeting when the special education teacher is not present and the paperwork is not available, a meeting will be scheduled for a later time to handle the paperwork necessary for proceeding with the testing. Practices by school staff to ensure that parents view the implementation of due process procedures and protections as timely, adequate, and fair The special education teacher is very conscientious about giving parents all the paperwork and materials at the appropriate time. All staff members are willing to stop a meeting and reconvene at another time to take the appropriate steps for a student.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

5.17

RTI Manual
Jefferson Elementary School Pella, Iowa (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Jefferson Elementary School has a total enrollment of 500 students, with two sections each of kindergarten through third grade and six sections each of fourth and fifth grades. Nearly equal numbers of girls and boys attend the school. About 14 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, and about 6.6 percent are served in special education. Five percent of the students are minority students, 95 percent are Caucasian, and six students are English language learners (ELL). Jefferson Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, and special education. Ensuring that parents feel welcome and comfortable in the school setting Jefferson Elementary provides opportunities for parents to visit the school and to meet the teachers during an open house and orientation sessions. Jefferson Elementary also offers the following volunteer opportunities for parents: the “literacy army,” in which parents serve as interventionists; fluency/accuracy screening volunteers, in which parent volunteers help conduct fluency/accuracy screenings four times per year; and classroom volunteers, in which parent volunteers assist students in the classroom in a variety of ways. The school encourages teachers to contact parents for positive issues as well as negative ones. E-mail is used as a communication mechanism, and parents are constantly in and out of the building. When arranging for Student Assistance Team (SAT) meetings, the classroom teacher, rather than the principal or SAT coordinator, contacts the parents. School staff believe this is less threatening because parents are more familiar with the classroom teacher. Ensuring that parents are involved in all phases of the rti process and receive active support for participation at school and at home Jefferson Elementary has an Intervention Plan form for teachers to use and send home to parents. This form includes the name of student; the area of concern; the grade-level satisfactory progress range; data collection procedures (what data will be col5.18 Jefferson Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population 95%

50% 50% 14%
Boys Girls

5%
Cauca- Minority sian

6.6%

1%
ELL (n=6)

Free/ Special Reduced Education Lunch

Total enrollment=500, K-5

lected, who will collect the data, when and how often data will be collected, and materials used to collect the data); and the plan for using the data for decision making (how often the data will be used, who will examine the data, and indicators of a needed instructional change). At the end of the Intervention Plan form is a table for recording instructional procedures, materials/arrangements, number of sessions per week and length of time per session, individuals responsible, and follow-up notes. Schools in the Pella Community School District (Jefferson Elementary’s district) use a Reading Plus Partnership Pledge (see page 5.19). This agreement is a pledge among students, parents, teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals to help students reach their highest educational objectives. All parties pledge to work together to accomplish the terms of this contract and strive for academic success. Parental notification The classroom teacher initially notifies parents that school staff will be discussing their child at a SAT meeting. The team includes the general education teacher, at-risk coordinator, remedial reading teacher, principal, and parents. The teacher notifies the parents in person or contacts them by phone, written note, or e-mail. The teacher submits a form to the SAT coordinator that lists the concerns about the child and provides current existing data. (This form can be shared with the parent but is not always given to them.) During the meeting, the coordinator takes notes about the discussion, which includes necessary accommodations and matching instructional needs to interventions, and at the end of the

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples The Reading Plus Partnership Pledge
As a student I promise to... • attend school every day. • work hard to do my best in class and on school work. • respect and cooperate with other students and adults. • do the homework assigned to me each night. • know and obey all school and class rules. • ask my teachers, parents, and others for help when I have a problem I cannot solve myself. As a parent I promise to... • have high expectations for my child and talk about those expectations. • help my child attend school and be on time. • find a quiet place for school work and make sure work is done nightly. • help my child learn to resolve conflicts in positive ways. • read all communication sent home by teachers and school staff and to work with staff to support and challenge my child. • help my child get adequate rest and nutrition so he or she can come to school ready to learn. As a teacher I promise to... • show that I care about all students. • expect students to be ready and willing to learn. • have high expectations for myself, students, and other staff, and clearly communicate those expectations. • communicate and work with families to support students’ learning. • provide a safe and caring environment for learning. • expect respect and support from students, families, other staff, and administration. • ask for assistance from staff and administration in removing barriers which prevent me from doing my best for students. As a principal I promise to... • create a welcoming environment for students and parents. • communicate the school’s mission and goals to students and parents. • maintain a positive and safe learning environment. • reinforce the partnership between parents, students, and staff members. • promote and foster high standards of academic achievement and behavior.

meeting, writes the plan. (Again, this is not always shared with parents but can be shared.) All decisions for placement in remedial interventions are made with parental input and consent. Frequent and consistent parent-staff communication Jefferson Elementary asks teachers to communicate with parents whenever they have concerns about a child so that contact takes place not only at parent-teacher conferences but also from the mo-

ment a teacher is concerned and begins trying Level 1 classroom interventions. This communication lasts throughout the process and, with some parents, might even evolve into daily contact. At the SAT meeting, the team usually sets a follow-up time to meet and discuss the specific data gathered during the intervention. Jefferson Elementary staff members also encourage parents to contact the school if they have concerns. Both parents and teachers can initiate an SAT meeting. Parents are invited to be a part of the
5.19

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

RTI Manual
SAT meetings, during which many of the interventions are planned. Progress data sent frequently to parents Progress data are routinely sent to the parents at report-card times. In addition, school staff share intervention data with the parents at the SAT meeting or, if requested or needed, progress data are shared with parents during the intervention. (Some parents request more information than others.) Active support for parent participation at school and at home Jefferson Elementary encourages parents to be active participants in their child’s education. At Jefferson, the parental involvement is good; however, with some students, school staff would like to have the parents more involved. Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the child’s plan, implementation, and timeline When the SAT process moves into the evaluation stage, formal paperwork is completed. Parents receive a copy of these papers and sign consent forms. Written materials to inform parents of the right to ask for a special education evaluation at any time The Area Education Agency (AEA) has a parent information booklet that is shared with parents when Jefferson Elementary initiates conversation about special education and evaluation. This information is accessible to any parent, but the school does not give it to all parents. Practices by school staff to ensure that parents view the implementation of due process procedures and protections as timely, adequate, and fair School staff at Jefferson Elementary try to be honest and open with parents about what is happening and explain why. Parents and staff sometimes think that the process takes too long and would like to have it move more quickly even though that is not always possible. School staff have found that if they collect the appropriate data early, it is sometimes easier to move more quickly later.

Tualatin Elementary School Tualatin, Oregon (Spring 2006) Overview and demographics Tualatin Elementary School enrolls 522 students in kindergarten through fifth grade, with three to four classrooms per grade. Nearly 50 percent (260) of the students receive free or reduced lunch. Sixtyfive students are served in special education (15 are identified as having a learning disability), and 160 are English language learners (ELL). Tualatin Elementary’s responsiveness-to-intervention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Ensuring that parents feel welcome and comfortable in the school setting Parents receive multiple newsletters—some monthly and others weekly. Some newsletters feature school-wide news; others focus on classroom or departmental issues, such as ELL and Title I. The school provides a variety of parent nights: Back-to-School, Kindergarten Round-Up, Cinco
5.20 Tualatin Elementary School
Percentage of Student Population

50% 31% 12%
Free/ Reduced Lunch Special Education ELL (n=160)

Total enrollment=522, K-5

de Mayo, One-Minute Reading Training, Summer Reading, ELL, etc. In addition, parents are invited to volunteer in classrooms. Most written communication with parents is translated into Spanish; parent nights and conferences are presented in Spanish and English; and one

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples of the four secretaries in the school’s administrative office speaks Spanish. Ensuring that parents are involved in all phases of the rti process and receive active support for participation at school and at home Parents receive DIBELS scores and Title I notification by mail. The Title I interventions are discussed at parent night (with parent training), and the school counselor invites parents to the school for data review or for a parent interview at the various individual problem-solving stages. Parents also receive support through home visits, newsletters, and telephone calls. Parental notification Tualatin Elementary has clearly specified times when parents are notified: 1. When a child is not doing well in the general curriculum and the Effective Behavior and Instructional Support (EBIS) Team reviews screening data and places the student in a group intervention 2. When the EBIS Team places a student in a second group intervention 3. When the EBIS Team designs an individual intervention for the student 4. When special education referral is initiated. Parents are continually informed about the plan and its implementation. Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the child’s plan, implementation, and timeline Parents rely on teachers’ professional expertise to determine the appropriate curriculum and the length and frequency of the interventions. Tualatin Elementary uses district decision rules to determine the duration of the interventions. Frequent and consistent parent-staff communication School staff make home visits, and classroom teachers make home visits, place telephone calls to student homes, and have parent conferences to explain the interventions and to review progress. Parents are on the site council to help create the schoolwide strategic plan, are involved in the PTA, and have input on the Title I compact and the program plan. Progress data sent frequently to parents Progress data are sent to parents at the end of each trimester. For those students in the EBIS process, progress data are sent to parents more frequently. Written materials to inform parents of the right to ask for a special education evaluation at any time The Tualatin District Rights and Responsibilities Handbook contains written information addressing the rights of parents to request a special evaluation any time. Advertisements also are placed in local newspapers informing parents and community members about agencies they can contact if they suspect a child has a disability. Practices by school staff to ensure that parents view the implementation of due process procedures and protections as timely, adequate, and fair The principal, the literacy specialists, or special education teachers explain due process rights to parents. In addition, the school mails a parents’ rights handbook to parents before meetings.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

5.21

RTI Manual

Resource List: School Examples
4Sight Reading and Math (Success for All Foundation) http://www.successforall.net/ayp/4sight.htm 4Sight assessments are one-hour tests that have exactly the same formats, coverage, look, and feel as individual state reading and math assessments. They produce overall scores predictive of students’ scores on state assessments. early age, building on emergent literacy that starts before formal schooling. Additional information can be obtained from the author’s book Concepts about Print: What Have Children Learned about the Way We Print Language? Published by Heinemann.

CORE Phonics and Phonological Segmentation (Consortium on Reading Excellence, Inc.) http://corelearn.com/ CORE works collaboratively with educators to support literacy achievement growth for all students. CORE’s literacy implementation support services and products help build capacity for effective instruction by laying a foundation of research-based knowledge, supporting the use of proven tools, and developing literacy leadership.

AIMSweb (Edformation, Inc.) http://www.aimsweb.com/products/systems/pro_ complete/description.php AIMSweb Pro distributes a variety of packaged Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) testing materials and web-based software to support a three-tier progress monitoring and responsiveness-to-intervention system in the areas of language arts, math, and reading.

Corrective Reading (SRA/McGraw Hill) http://www.sra4kids.com Corrective Reading provides intensive intervention for students in fourth through 12th grade who are reading one or more years below grade level. This program delivers tightly sequenced, carefully planned lessons that give struggling students the structure and practice necessary to become skilled, fluent readers and better learners. Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Program (TASA Literacy Online) http://www.tasaliteracy.com/drp/drp-main.html The Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Program is the basis of a line of reading comprehension tests for students in first through 12th grade and beyond. The tests are criterion-referenced and allow precise tracking of a student’s reading development over time.

American Federation of Teachers http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/ remedial.pdf Building on the Best, Learning from What Works: Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Programs. The purpose of the series is to promote high standards, effectiveness, replicability, and support structures as criteria for promising reading programs. The five programs featured in the report are researchbased: Direct Instruction, Early Steps, Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction, Lindamood-Bell, and Reading Recovery.

Basic Reading Inventory (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company) http://www.kendallhunt.com/index.cfm Basic Reading Inventory, by Jerry L. Johns, is an early literacy assessment for pre-primary through 12th grade. Each book contains multimedia materials demonstrating administration of a reading inventory developed for use by classroom teachers, students in pre-service education, teachers taking introductory and advanced reading courses, reading specialists, and others who are interested in in-service work in reading assessment.

Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (Riverside/ Houghton Mifflin) http//:www.riverpub.com/ The Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR) is a criterion-referenced reading test developed by F.G. Roswell, J.S. Chall, M.E. Curtis, and G. Kearns. Its purpose is to assess individual student achievement in print awareness, phonological awareness, letters and sounds, word recognition, word analysis, oral reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading comprehension, spelling, and word meaning. It is administered on an as-needed basis to selected students in kindergarten through 12th grade (ages 5 to adult) who are not making progress in their reading interventions.

Concepts About Print (CAP) (Marie M. Clay)
Coined by New Zealand educator Marie Clay, concepts about print (CAP) refers to what emergent readers need to understand about how printed language works and how it represents language. Successful beginning readers develop concepts about print at an
5.22

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
DIBELS (University of Oregon) http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are a set of standardized, individually administered measures of early literacy development designed to be short (one minute) fluency measures used to regularly monitor the development of pre-reading and early reading skills. • Harcourt Holistic Assessment Books provide authentic literature for assessment of students’ application of reading, writing skills, and strategies. • Harcourt Trophies Intervention includes materials (Intervention Resource Kits, Readers, Teacher’s Guides, Practice Books, Skill Cards, etc.) for comprehensive teaching support and supplemental instruction. • Harcourt Holistic Assessment uses the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV) to assess students’ knowledge of speech and language that are non-contrastive (i.e., common across varieties of American English so they are less likely to lead to misidentification).

Earobics (Cognitive Concepts Inc.) http://www.earobics.com/ Earobics provides early literacy skill training by teaching the phonological awareness, listening, and introductory phonics skills required for learning to read and spell.

Fox in a Box (CTB/ McGraw-Hill) http://www.ctb.com/ Fox in a Box is an early literacy assessment that measures children’s skills twice yearly from kindergarten through second grade. It provides diagnostic information of selected skills in four learning strands: phonemic awareness, phonics, reading/oral expression, and listening/writing.

Houghton Mifflin Reading Series (Houghton Mifflin) http://www.hmco.com/products/products_elementary. html The Houghton Mifflin Reading Series builds fluency, extends key themes and concepts across curriculum areas, and provides practice and the application of skills and strategies.

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Assessment (Riverside Publishing) http://riverpub.com/products/gmrt/index.html The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Assessment is a group-administered reading survey test used to assess student achievement in reading.

Idaho Reading Indicator (Idaho Department of Education) http://www.sde.state.id.us/IRI/ The Idaho Reading Indicator tests for fluency and accuracy of a student’s reading. It is the single statewide test specified by the Idaho state board of education, and the state department of education ensures that testing takes place twice a year in kindergarten through third grade.

Great Leaps (Diarmuid, Inc.) http://www.greatleaps.com/ Great Leaps Reading uses instructional tactics with motivators to remediate a variety of reading problems. The program is divided into three major areas: Phonics—developing and mastering essential sightsound relationships or sound awareness skills; Sight Phrases—mastering sight words while developing and improving focusing skills; and Reading Fluency—using age-appropriate stories specifically designed to build reading fluency, reading motivation, and proper intonation.

Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (Idaho Department of Education) http://www.sde.state.id.us/Dept/testreports.asp Idaho’s comprehensive assessment system begins with kindergarten and continues through high school. The focus of the state assessment program is primarily on math, reading, and language usage skills.

Iowa Test of Basic Skills (University of Iowa) http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/itbs/index.htm The Iowa Test of Basic Skills is a voluntary, nonprofit cooperative program for kindergarten through eighth grade provided as a service to the schools of Iowa by the College of Education of the University of Iowa.

Harcourt School Publishers http://www.harcourt.com/ Harcourt School Publishers is an elementary school publisher that develops, publishes, and markets textbooks, electronic/online material, and related instructional materials for school or home use. • The Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency Assessment offers passages used by staff to measure and track students’ oral reading rates and accuracy throughout the year.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

5.23

RTI Manual
Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) (Sopris West) http://www.sopriswest.com/ This professional development program provides reading coaches, specialists, and teachers with a comprehensive, practical understanding of how their students learn to read, write, and spell—and how they can use this understanding to improve and focus instruction.

Oregon State Assessments (OSA) (Office of Assessment in the Oregon Department of Education) http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=169 Oregon’s assessments are used to show how well individual students have mastered Oregon standards and to demonstrate the effectiveness of schools and districts in preparing students to meet standards. Mastery is measured in three general ways: knowledge and skill tests, on-demand state performance assessments, and classroom work samples.

Letter Sound Fluency Test (Vanderbilt University)
Copies can be order from flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu The Letter Sound Fluency Test was developed by Doug and Lynn Fuchs to assess a student’s capacity to translate letters into sounds fluently: a student has one minute to say the sounds for the 26 letters. The test takes five minutes to administer and was developed for use with kindergarteners through first-graders.

Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) (Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Research on Human Development) http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/ PALS Reading and PALS Math enable classroom teachers to accommodate diverse learners and help a large proportion of these students achieve success. PALS Reading and PALS Math have been approved by the U.S. Department of Education’s Program Effectiveness Panel for inclusion in the National Diffusion Network on effective educational practices.

Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test (MIALT) (Iowa Department of Education) http://www.state.ia.us/educate/index.html The Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test is a criterionreferenced test, meaning that it measures knowledge within an established set of standards. Given each year in the fall and in the spring, the MIALT is helpful in assessing a student’s progress toward identified standards. Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (MBSP) (ProEd, Inc.) http://www.proedinc.com/ Developed at Vanderbilt University by Lynn Fuchs, Carol Hamlett, and Douglas Fuchs, the Monitoring Basic Skills Progress is a computer program that automatically conducts curriculum-based measurement and monitoring of student progress in reading, math computation, and math concepts and applications. Students receive immediate feedback on their progress, and teachers receive individual and class-wide reports to help them develop more effective instruction. MBSP unit options include basic reading, basic math computation, and basic math concepts and applications.

Precision Teaching (PT) (concept by Ogden Lindsley)
Precision Teaching is a concept of basing educational decisions on changes in continuous self-monitored performance results that are displayed on charts. Additional information about the concept can be found in the following resources: • Lindsley, O.R. (1992). Precision teaching: Discoveries and effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 51-57. • Lindsley, O.R. (1990). Precision teaching: By teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 10-15. • West, R.P., & Young, K.R. (1992). Precision teaching. In R.P. West & L.A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Designs for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F. Skinner (pp. 113-146). Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc. • White O.R. (1986). Precision teaching—Precision learning. Exceptional Children, 52, 522-534.

Open Court (SRA/McGraw Hill) http://www.sra4kids.com/ Open Court Reading is a research-based curriculum grounded in systematic, explicit instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics and word knowledge, comprehension skills and strategies, inquiry skills and strategies, and writing and language arts skills and strategies.

Quick Reads (Pearson Learning Group’s Modern Curriculum Press) http://www.quickreads.org/ QuickReads are short texts to be read quickly and with meaning. The QuickReads program consists of three levels: B, C, and D. These texts support automaticity with the high-frequency words and phonics/ syllabic patterns needed to be a successful reader at a particular grade level.

5.24

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Read Naturally (Read Naturally, Inc.) http://www.readnaturally.com/ Students work with the Read Naturally stories on paper and read along to fluent recordings of the stories on cassettes or audio CDs. Reading along is the teacher modeling step, which helps students learn new words and encourages proper pronunciation, expression, and phrasing.

The Six-Minute Solution: A Fluency Program (Sopris West) http://www.sopriswest.com/ The Six-Minute Solution is a research-based way to build students’ reading fluency in six minutes a day. It can be use as a complement to any reading curriculum and as an intervention program. Students do repeated readings of one-minute nonfiction passages as their same-level partners note the number of words read correctly.

Read Well (Sopris West) http://www.sopriswest.com/ Read Well is a validated, research-based and datadriven core reading curriculum that teaches students the important building blocks of literacy while providing the foundation and skills to develop lifelong readers. It is designed to generate quantitative learning gains for all students, with struggling students showing the most substantial growth by combining explicit, systematic instruction, rich themes and content, and structured learning activities.

SRA Reading Mastery (SRA/McGraw-Hill) http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/readingmastery.htm Reading Mastery helps students develop strategies for reading and understanding through the use of a synthetic phonics approach. Its use has proven to reduce the prevalence of reading problems and elevate the reading skills of at-risk children well into the average range.

REWARDS (Sopris West) http://www.sopriswest.com/ The REWARDS reading intervention program is a validated, research-based program that can be used as an effective intervention in general and special education, remedial reading, summer school, and afterschool programs. The program improves decoding, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, content-area reading and writing, and test-taking abilities.

Wilson Reading (Wilson Language Training) http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/ The Wilson Reading System is a research-based reading and writing program. It is a complete curriculum for teaching decoding and encoding (spelling), beginning with phoneme segmentation.

Write Well (Sopris West) http://www.sopriswest.com/ Write Well provides daily dictation lessons for teaching students how to translate spoken into written English and helps them master the conventions of sentence writing. In 15 to 20 minutes per day, these field-tested methods can be incorporated into Read Well instruction.

Road to the Code (Brookes) http://www.brookespublishing.com Road to the Code is an 11-week program for teaching phonemic awareness and letter sound correspondence to kindergartners and first-graders who are having difficulty with their early literacy skills.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

5.25

RTI Manual

Part Two Student Case Studies

In the following examples, we highlight data from individual elementary-school students who have received early reading (and limited math) interventions through a multi-tiered RTI service-delivery model. These data are from real students in real-world circumstances; consequently, the information collected, as well as the data collection process, reflect variations initiated by the students’ respective school and the unique characteristics of individual students. We have altered the names and other uniquely identifying information about student characteristics for confidentiality purposes.

Case Study: Bryanna
Reading: Third Grade (2005 – 2006) Bryanna is an 8-year-old, Caucasian female. She is in third grade and has not been retained. Third Grade (2005 – 2006) Tier 1 Bryanna is in a general education class of 17 students. Her general education (Tier 1) reading instruction takes place for 90 minutes each day, five Table 5.1. Bryanna’s Tier 1 Screening Scores Assessment DIBELS FALL ORF FALL RTF MID-YEAR ORF MID-YEAR RTF 41 17 64 44 < 77 < 38 < 92 < 46 Bryanna’s Scores Some Risk Cut Score days a week, with Scholastic Literacy Place. The class is split into smaller reading groups, and Bryanna is in a reading group of six students. Tier 1 Screening. The school administered DIBELS in August 2005 and again in December 2005. Table 5.1 shows Bryanna’s scores compared to the established cut scores.

DIBELS Scoring is as follows: • DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) = number of correct words per minute from the passage • DIBELS Retell Fluency (RTF) is intended to provide a comprehension check for the DIBELS ORF assessment

5.26

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Behavior. This school uses a district behavior discipline form to gather school-wide behavior data. No behavior concerns were noted for Bryanna. Tier 2 Tier 2 interventions. Bryanna began receiving Tier 2 interventions in second grade, and they continued into third grade, as follows: • SRA Reading Mastery II and Lindamood Phonemic Sequencing (LiPS) with the special education teacher for 60 minutes each day, five days a week. • Bryanna is also being tutored for 50 minutes twice a week. She is in a group with six other students and is working on Balanced Literacy using non-fiction readers. Tier 2 progress monitoring. Table 5.2 shows Bryanna’s progress monitoring scores for oral reading fluency and retell fluency measures. The table also notes the established cut scores for designating a child as at some risk in these areas.

Table 5.2. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) and Retell Fluency (RTF) Date Sept. Week 1 Sept. Week 3 Oct. Week 1 Oct. Week 4 Nov. Week 2 Nov. Week 4 Dec. Week 2 Jan. Week 2 Jan. Week 4 Feb. Week 1 Bryanna’s ORF Scores 41 56 47 64 62 Absent 64 88 100 73 < 92 At Some Risk ORF Cut Scores < 77 Bryanna’s RTF Scores 17 35 16 28 32 Absent 44 9 54 0 < 46 At Some Risk RTF Cut Scores < 38

End of year

< 110

< 55

Math: Third Grade (2005 – 2006) Third Grade (2005 – 2006) Tier 1 Bryanna is in a general education class of 17 students for math. Her general education (Tier 1) math instruction takes place for 60 minutes each day, five days a week, with Houghton-Mifflin Central. Tier 1 screening. The school administered the Terra Nova screening measure in August to all third-grade students. The cut score used to designate “at-risk” status is equivalent to the measure’s proficiency level. Bryanna’s math score placed her in the unsatisfactory range, therefore “at risk.” Quarterly assessments also are given at the end of each grading period. The “at risk” status is again based on degree of mastery toward the standards that are evaluated by the assessments. Bryanna placed in the unsatisfactory and partial mastery range on quarterly assessments in October.
5.27

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

RTI Manual
Tier 2 Tier 2 intervention. Bryanna is receiving smallgroup math problem solving instruction with the special education teacher for 30 minutes a day, four days each week. Seven other students are in this group. The curriculum includes Houghton Mifflin Math Central problem solving, Investigations, and Touch Math. Tier 2 progress monitoring. Progress monitoring consists of teacher observation and teachergenerated prompts. Data are collected on a weekly basis. The cut score designation for inadequate response is 80 percent accuracy. The following table reports Bryanna’s quiz scores in relation to the 80 percent accuracy criterion. Quizzes consist of five problems.

Table 5.3 Math Problem Solving Quizzes 2005-2006 School Year Quiz Date Oct. 21 Nov. 4 Nov. 18 Dec. 2 Dec. 16 Jan. 13 Jan. 27 Score 0 40 60 60 20 60 0 Inadequate response score < 80 percent < 80% < 80% < 80% < 80% < 80% < 80%

Disability And Eligibility Determination For Tier 3 – Special Education Bryanna was referred for a special education evaluation due to inadequate response to intervention. The evaluation employed discrepancy criteria and language severity rating scales. Table 5.4, beginning on page 5.29, lists all of the components and measures used in the comprehensive evaluation. As a result of the evaluation, Bryanna did not qualify for special education services with an SLD/ LD designation as school personnel had anticipated she would. Although she did not respond to Tier 2

interventions, she still needed to exhibit a discrepancy to be eligible with an SLD designation. However, after looking at the scores, the team determined that her biggest skill deficits were in the area of speech-language. Her Spoken Language Quotient of 67 on the TOLD P:3 assessment was more than two standard deviations below the mean. This score qualified her for Tier 3 (special education) interventions in the area of speech-language. The school is awaiting parental consent at an initial Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting to begin Tier 3 (special education) services.

5.28

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Table 5.4. Comprehensive Evaluation Components and Measures for SLD Determination (Bryanna)
Assessment/ Procedure Type of Data or Score Comments IEP team determined that Bryanna’s disability is in the area of speech-language Full Scale SS = 81* SS Broad Reading = 92 Broad Math= 94 Broad Written Lang = 99 < 68 to qualify as SLD > 70 Collaboration with classroom performance data and RTI IEP Team Decision WISC-IV WJ-III Cut Score/ Criteria

Component

Test/ Meeting Date

Multifaceted in Nature

At IEP meeting – 2/2/06

Intellectual Ability

1-11-2006

Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancies

11-28-2005

Intra-individual Differences TOLD P:3 IEP Team Decision BASC and Conners’ BASC teacher ratings reflected attention and learning problems in the at-risk range. All other behavioral areas presented in the average range. Adaptability and social skills were rated above average, presenting relative strengths. Conners’ teacher ratings show elevated scores for areas related to cognitive inattention. Conners’ parent ratings reflect no areas of concern; all scores fell within the average ranges. The BASC parent ratings also reflected no areas of concern. Determined to be appropriate BASC and Conners’ scores are not typically used to qualify a student as PC (SLD) unless they were in the clinically significant range or the high end of the at-risk range for areas related to attention problems that may be a component of processing difficulties. Spoken Language Quotient = 67 1½ standard deviations below the mean Individual Skill Deficits English acquisition and instruction were not found to be lacking Cognitive inattention and learning problems in the atrisk range.

Information or Language Processing Involvement

11-29-2005

Exclusionary Criteria

At IEP meeting 2/2/06

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 IEP Team Decision IEP Team determined that Bryanna has had access to appropriate learning experiences.

Behavioral and Academic Screening

1-11-2006

Appropriate Learning Experiences

At the IEP meeting 2/2/06

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples

See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.

5.29

5.30 Assessment/ Procedure Type of Data or Score No significant concerns reported by parent. Comments Social Developmental History Vineland (as needed) Communication and Parent Contact Logs Eligibility Criteria Checklist** Progress toward goals met Cut Score/ Criteria

Component

Test/ Meeting Date

RTI Manual

Social Skills Deficits

1-11-2006

Adaptive Behavior

Parents’ Role

Ongoing

Eligibility Decision and Professional Judgment

At IEP meeting 2/2/06

Special Education Exit Criteria

See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.

* Bryanna’s school uses state criteria of 70 or above for a learning disability (Perceptual Communicative Disability) as opposed to SLIC (Significant Limited Intellectual Capacity). To qualify for SLIC, a student must have three measures—cognitive, educational achievement, and adaptive behavior—with scores of 70 or less.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

** The speech-language checklist consists of selecting the area of speech-language impairment (i.e., expressive/receptive delay). Then, to qualify, that impairment must cause a need for augmentative communication, substantial behavior problems due to communication, or interference with oral or written communication for academics.

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples

Case Study: Jayden
Reading: Kindergarten (2003) – Second Grade (2006) Jayden is an 8-year-old boy in second grade. He is multiracial. He has never been retained but has continued, since kindergarten, to struggle with reading. Kindergarten (2003–2004) Tier 1 In kindergarten, Jayden’s general education (Tier 1) reading instruction consisted of 120 minutes each day, five days a week, with the Harcourt Trophies series. The general education teacher gave reading instruction to the whole class and also to small groups. Seven students were in Jayden’s group. The school administered the Early Screening Inventory (ESI-K) in August 2003 and administered DIBELS in mid-September, mid-January, and at the end of the third week in April. Table 5.6 shows Jayden’s scores compared to the established cut scores.

Table 5.6. Jayden’s Tier 1 early Screening Inventory and DIBELS Scores Assessment ESI-K Fall DIBELS - ISF Fall DIBELS - LNF Mid-Year DIBELS - ISF Mid-Year DIBELS - LNF Mid-Year DIBELS – PSF Spring DIBELS - LNF Spring DIBELS - PSF Spring DIBELS – NWF Jayden’s Scores 28 28 5 23 7 27 8 25 6 At Risk Cut-off Score