mtss: making it real matthew burns university of
DESCRIPTION
The Results Involving special education personnel in prereferral activities reduces placements into special education (Burns, 1999) Co-teaching – Strong effects for language arts and moderate effects for math (Murawski & Swanson, 2001) – Enhances skills of students who are at-risk but non-disabled (Cook & Friend, 2004)TRANSCRIPT
MTSS: Making it Real
Matthew BurnsUniversity of Missouri
@burnsmk1
Purpose of Education?• Education is the best provision for old age (Aristotle)• Education should teach all to write with a swift and fair hand (Benjamin
Franklin, 1749)• Education should replace an empty mind with an open one (Malcom
Forbes, 1980)• Education should provide instruction and related services that are free
from cost and that meet student needs while also fostering an understanding and acceptance of ethical values such as respect for others, justice, civic virtue and citizenship, and responsibility for self and others (US Department of Education)
The Results• Involving special education personnel in prereferral activities reduces
placements into special education (Burns, 1999)
• Co-teaching – Strong effects for language arts and moderate effects for math (Murawski &
Swanson, 2001)– Enhances skills of students who are at-risk but non-disabled (Cook & Friend, 2004)
Substantial Shift in Education• 1983!
• Focused to comprehensive
• Basic skill to proficiency (to college and career ready)
• Process to outcomes
Interventions for Children with LD Reading comprehension 1.13 Direct instruction
.84 Psycholinguistic training .39 Modality instruction .15 Diet
.12 Perceptual training
.08 Kavale & Forness, 2000
Special Education• President’s Commission on Excellence in Special
Education• Reduce paperwork and increase flexibility• Identify and intervene early
– Service first and assessment later• “Those that get counted, count.”• Use special education staff more effectively
, at no cost to the parents or guardians, to
meet the of a child with a
disability.
Individualized instruction
unique
needs
The answer??
“All hands on deck” – Judy Elliott, Chief Academic Officer of LAUSD
General Education
Remedial Education
Gifted Education
Special EducationEducation
And DATA!
Unique learning needs = Education that is SPECIAL
MTSSThe systematic use of assessment data to mostefficiently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all students.
Burns, Jimerson, VanDerHeyden, & Deno, 2016
Prerequisite• Link to school improvement• Of course – buy in• PLAN!
– Year 1 – Assessment data prep Tier 2– Year 2 – Start tier 2 train PST– Year 3 – Start tier 3– Year 4 – Assess the system– Year 5 – Up and running
DON’T START WITH PROBLEM SOVLING TEAM
Without good core instruction, nothing else matters
Problem-Solving Team• 20% or 5%??
– 20% of 500 = 100!
• PST doesn’t solve problems
• Start and finish with Tier 1!
• Grade level teams/PLCs
PLC Meetings: Agenda PLC: 1st weekly meeting of the month (Content Focus)
Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate
School-site established PLC focus on various topics (e.g., math, STEM, behavior, environment, or other school topical initiatives)
PLC: 2nd weekly meeting of the month MTSS (Core Instruction Literacy Focus)
Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate
Examine various formal and informal data to drive core instruction
Agenda will include embedded professional development on topics that address opportunities and challenges for core instruction
PLC: 3rd weekly meeting of the month (Content Focus)
Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate
School-site established PLC focus with schools studying varied topics
PLC: 4th weekly meeting of the month MTSS (Data Analysis)
Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate (data management team)
Analyze screening/benchmark data Analyze progress monitoring data Discuss, monitor and adjust tiered interventions.
PLC Meeting - Benchmark• Is there a classwide need?
• Who needs Tier 2?
• Did we miss anyone?
• What should we do for Tier 2?
• Should we go to Tier 3?
Minnesota Center for Reading Research
WRCStudent 1 48Student 2 122Student 3 126Student 4 82Student 5 102Student 6 77Student 7 51Student 8 84Student 9 80Student 10 102Student 11 83Student 12 38Student 13 104Student 14 152Student 15 143Student 16 115Student 17 142Student 18 114Student 19 13Student 20 75Student 21 141Student 22 87Student 23 49
Median 87
Fall 70
Winter 91
Spring 109
Procedure
Partner Reading Paragraph Shrinking
1. Stronger reader reads aloud for 5 minutes
2. The weaker reader reads aloud the SAME text for 5 minutes
3. Weaker readers sequence the major events of what has been read for 1 minute
1. For 5 minutes the stronger read continues reading new text in the story, stopping after each paragraph to summarize
2. For 5 minutes the weaker reader continues with the new text, stopping after each paragraph to summarize
Partner ReadingPartnerships
TimelineCollect Data: Pre-test (fluency and comprehension)
• Day 1: Train Students on Set Up Procedures and Partner Reading, Practice Reading for 10 minutes, Error Correction
• Day 2: Train Students on Paragraph Shrinking, Practice Reading for 10 minutes
• Day 3-10: Partner Reading, Paragraph Shrinking 15 minutes every day
Collect Data: Post-test (fluency and comprehension)
Partner Reading
• First Reader reads for 5 minutes.
• Second Reader reads the same text for 5 minutes.
• Second Reader retells for 1 minute.
Talk only to your partner and only talk about Partner Reading
Keep your voice low Help your partner
Try your best!
RULES
Paragraph Shrinking• Name the most important who or what.
• Tell the most important thing about the who or what.
• Say the main idea in 10 words or less.
Correction Procedures
STOP. That word is______________
What word?______________________
Good Job!
Go back and read that line again.
What we found: 3rd grade Partner Reading dataThird Grade
Third Grade Benchmark
91 Words Read Correctly (WRC)
Pre Intervention Class Median
(WRC)
Post Intervention Class Median
(WRC)
Slope (WRC)
Class 1 81 104 11.5
Class 2 87 115 14
What we found: 3rd grade Partner Reading data
Students Below Benchmark Pre
Intervention
Students Below Benchmark Post
Intervention
Total Students in Class
Third Grade Class 1
10 5 20
Third Grade Class 2
13 5 23
Growth from Winter to Spring Class-Wide Interventions10 Classrooms K-3
0102030
Actual Growth Winter to SpringTargeted Growth (one yr of growth) Winter To Spring
Growth from Winter To Spring NO Class-Wide Interventions 11 Classrooms K-3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Actual Growth Fall To Winter
Targeted Growth (one year growth) Fall To Winter
Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade (LSF) (ORF) (ORF) (ORF)
Class-wide Interventions Implemented in 10 of the 21 Classes Below Winter Benchmark:
9 of the 10 Above Spring Benchmark
Class-wide Interventions0123456789
10
Above Spring BenchmarkBelow Spring Benchmark
NO Class-wide Intervention Implemented in 11 Classes Below Winter Benchmark
2 of the 11 Above Spring Benchmark
No Class-wide Intervention0123456789
10
Above Spring BenchmarkBelow Spring Benchmark
Science Project• Approximately 140 4th and 5th graders• Science content• Readworks.org• Grade level ORF and science MAZE• 2 weeks
MAZE Growth 4th Grade
Fourth A Fourth B Fourth C0
2
4
6
8
10
12
MAZE Growth 5th Grade
Fifth A Fifth B Fifth C0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
GUIDE:
1. Find class median for WRC and errors on the “Second Grade Practice Data” worksheet
Literacy in MS/HS
http://www.fcrr.org/Interventions/pdf/Principals%20Guide-Secondary.pdf
Classwide Need and Instructional PLC• What do highly effective teachers do? • What will we as a TEAM do?• How will we know if it works?
• What data can we collect (outcome)?• For what will we look (process)?• How will coach provide feedback?
• What will we do next?– What is the implementation plan (e.g., observe, first steps, etc.)?– Coaches role (what will be modeled/shared)?– Who else will help?– What process and outcomes will be reported at the next meeting?
Use data for the wrong purpose
Four Purposes of AssessmentProgram evaluation: How is the education system working for students overall?
• State test
Screening: Which of my students are not meeting grade level expectations given Universal Instruction?
• E.g., Star, Oral Reading Fluency
Diagnostic: What are the specific needs of students who struggle with reading or math?
E.g., measures of specific skills
Monitoring Progress: What does the student’s growth look like? E.g., Curriculum-based measures (CBM)
Screener MAP < 25th %ile MAP > 25th %ile TotalOral Reading Fluency (ORF)
ORF < Benchmark Goal 276 145 421
A B ORF > Benchmark Goal 46 501 547
C DTotal 322 646 968Informal Reading Inventory (RI) RI < Benchmark Goal 90 189 279
A B RI > Benchmark Goal 200 367 567
C DTotal 290 556 846
Sensitivity = a / (a + c) = .86 for ORF and .31 for F&P, Specificity = d / (b + d) = .78 for ORF and .66 for F&P, Overall Correct Classification = (a + d) / N = .80 for ORF and .54 for F&P
Screening/
Benchmark Diagnostic
Monitor Progress
Skill
Monitor Progress
General
Emergent
(Typically K-1)
PA to decoding
Alphabetic
Principle (PA)
Quick
Phonemic
Awareness
(QPA)
Weekly
DIBELS PSF
(Specific PA task – e.g.,
Rhyming Task, )
Every other week
DIBELS PSF
Beginning
(Typically 1st -2nd)
Decoding
ORF QPA, NWF, &
WTW
Weekly
DIBELS NWF
(Specific NWF - e.g.,
long vowel sounds)
Every other week
ORF
Screening/
Benchmark Diagnostic
Monitor Progress
Skill
Monitor Progress
General
Transitional
(Typically 2nd – 3rd)
Decoding to Fluency
ORF & MAP MAP, ORF, &
Word Their
Way (WTW)
Weekly
DIBELS NWF or
DIBELS
Instructional-level
ORF
Every other
week
ORF
Intermediate
(Typically 3rd)
Fluency to
Comprehension
ORF & MAP MAP, ORF, &
WTW
Weekly
DIBELS
Instructional-level
ORF
Every other
week
ORF
Take an Assessment Inventory
45
HTTP://WWW.RTI4SUCCESS.ORG/RESOURCES/TOOLS-CHARTS/SCREENING-TOOLS-CHART
Meta-Analysis of Seven Meta-AnalysesMeasure d Number of Studies
Nonverbal Reasoning .24 4
Working Memory .11 55
IQ/Cognitive Processing .17 69
RAN .55 19
Reading Fluency .81 122
Phonemic/Phonological Awareness .49 46
Reading Comprehension .68 56
Word Reading .89 62
Reading Accuracy .53 62
Spelling .60 13
Skill-By-Treatment Interaction• Burns, Codding, Boice, & Lukito, 2008• Interventions selected based on student
functioning in the specific skill• Systematically identify and manipulate
environmental conditions that are directly related to a problem
• Isolate target skill deficits
Use One Intervention
Target the intervention
Use the core at Tier 2• Second scoop
• Effective interventions need to be targeted
• Tier 2 is intervention NOT instruction
• Don’t over emphasize fluency
National Reading Panel• Is phonemic awareness instruction effective in helping
children learn to read?• Reviewed 52 studies of PA instruction. • Three general outcomes were explored
– PA tasks such as phoneme manipulation, – spelling,– and reading tasks such as word reading, pseudoword
reading, reading comprehension, oral text reading, reading speed, time to reach a criterion of learning, and miscues
National Reading Panel Results• PA instruction demonstrated better efficacy over
alternative instruction models or no instruction• Improved PA measures (strong), reading (d = .53) and
spelling skills• Teaching one or two PA skills was preferable to teaching
three or more• PA instruction benefited reading comprehension (Ehri et
al.).
Means and Ranges of Effect Sizes by Reading Outcome Measure
N Mean ES
SD Minimum Maximum
Pseudowords
24 .84 .80 -.19 3.60
Words in Isolation
48 .92 .89 -.05 4.33
Contextual Reading
24 .37 .38 -.37 1.18
Tier II Interventions• PALS
• HOSTS
• Read Naturally
• Rewards
• Reading Rockets
• Etc., etc., etc.
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary and Comprehension
Assess 4 NRP Areas• Phonemic Awareness
– Phoneme segmentation fluency
• Phonics– Nonsense word fluency (WJ Pseudoword)
• Fluency– Oral reading fluency (TOSCRF)
• Vocabulary/Comprehension– Measures of Academic Progress or STAR Reading
PRESShttp://www.cehd.umn.edu/reading/PRESS/default.html
Leveled Literacy Intervention• Effect Sizes
• Kindergarten = .26
• First Grade = .36
• Second Grade = -.09Ransford-Kaldon, C. R., Flynt, E. S., Ross, C. L., Franceschini, L. A., Zoblotsky, T. A., Huang, Y., & Gallagher, B. (2010). Implementation of effective intervention: An empirical study to evaluate the efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention Program (LLI) for 2009-2010. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Category of Problem MN HS• 9-12 with approximately 1600 students• 69.2% pass reading• 9th-10th grade • 28% low on MAP (~225)• 45% Low on TOSCRF (~100)
– 64% low on phonics (~65)– 36% acceptable phonics (~36)
Groups• Randomly assigned to two groups
– Read 180– Targeted (phonics – REWARDS, fluency – Read Naturally,
comprehension – Read 180
• Wait list control group
• 20 minutes each day for 13 weeks in addition to reading and study skills
Targeted Interventions Control Waitlist Control
Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Fluency Pretest 90.17 7.65 89.88 9.73 na na
Fluency Posttest 98.33 7.27 94.32 8.77 na Na
MAP Fall 206.00 9.25 211.00 10.11 210.37 6.56
Map Winter 217.21 7.56 212.40 8.06 212.78 6.04
ANCOVA for fluency F (1, 42) = 4.98, p < .05, d = .50ANCOVA for MAP F (2, 74) = 5.84, p < .05, partial eta squared = .14.
Minnesota Center for Reading Research
ACCURACY > 93%
Fluency intervention
`Grade Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension
Kindergarten EIR – K EIR – K NA Text Talk NA
First Grade Road to the Code Road to the
Code
NA Text Talk NA
Second Grade Fast Forward
Language
Corrective
Reading
Six Minute
Solution
Building Vocabulary
Skills
Comprehension
Plus
Third Grade Fast Forward
Language
Corrective
Reading
Six Minute
Solution
Building Vocabulary
Skills
Comprehension
Plus
Fourth Grade NA REWARDS Six Minute
Solution
Building Vocabulary
Skills
Comprehension
Plus
Fifth Grade NA REWARDS Six Minute
Solution
Building Vocabulary
Skills
Comprehension
Plus
Websites• www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-interve
ntion-tools• www.ebi.Missouri.edu• www.gosbr.net• http://www.cehd.umn.edu/reading/PRESS/about.html
Have Same Treatments Across Tiers
RTI and Problem-Solving
Mea
sure
men
t Pre
cisio
n
Measurem
ent Frequency
Problem-Analysis
TIER I
TIER I I
TIER III
Problem Solving• Tier I – Identify discrepancy between expectation and
performance for class or individual – Is it a classwide problem?
• Tier II – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify category of problem. Assign small group solution. What is the category of the problem?
• Tier III – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify causal variable. Implement individual intervention. What is the causal variable?
Tier 2 Problem Solving• Check student’s attendance – Does the student attend school regularly• Observe the student – Are behavioral difficulties interfering with the
interventions?• Incentivize the intervention – Is the student sufficiently motivated? • Examine intervention fidelity – Is the intervention occurring as it should?• Examine the accuracy within skill and GOM data – Are the students
receiving a proficiency intervention when they should be focusing on acquisition?
• Compare skill and GOM data – Are students not generalizing (skill data are going up but GOM are not)
Components of Tier III• Precise measurement on a frequent basis
– Monitor progress at least once each week
• Individualized and intensive interventions
• Meaningful multi-disciplinary collaboration regarding individual kids
Item Yes No1. Team meets on a consistent (e.g., weekly) basis.
2. A “Request for Assistance Form” (RAF) is used to identify problem and provide data before the meeting.
3. The RAF is brief, but provides adequate information about the problem.
4. The building principal or administrative designee is present at the meeting.
5. PST members have designated roles (e.g., note taker, discussion facilitator).
6. Documentation of consultant meeting with teacher prior to PST meeting.
7. Follow-up meeting is scheduled.
8. A case documentation form is used to track the team’s activities.
9. Follow-up consultation is scheduled between teacher and one PST member.
Item Yes No10. Baseline data are collected and presented.
11. Data are objective and empirical.
12. Selected interventions are research-based.
13. Selected intervention is directly linked to assessment data.
14. Start with interventions that have a high-probability of success.
15. Consulting personnel assist with implementation of intervention.
16. Team develops specific implementation plan with teacher.
17. Data collection plan is developed to monitor effectiveness and progress.
18. Monitoring data are objective, empirical, and directly linked to the problem.
19. A plan is developed to assess implementation integrity of the intervention.
20. Parent information is discussed.
Is MTSS New and Different?• MTSS and PBS
• MTSS and PLC
• School-wide cultural change
Evaluation Review• Who, what, why, and when (within 30 school
days).
• What if you just didn’t do it?
Integrity• Interventions• Assessments• PLC/Grade-Level Teams• Problem Solving Teams
Parents as Partners• Letter at beginning of the year• Letter for Tier 2 and 3• Consent – special education• Parents on PST• Parents on task force
Parents as Partners• Communicate with parents throughout the
entire process• Invite to meeting• Interview before• Follow-up after
