resource handout packet - presencelearning · resource handout packet ... information about...

Resource Handout Packet

Kimberly Gibbons, Ph.D.

The materials in this resource kit are shared with the permission of Dr. Kimberly Gibbons and/or the publisher(s)

Getting Results with a Sustainable Multi-Tiered System of Supports Kim Gibbons, Ph.D.

Websites with Intervention Information • http://www.interventioncentral.org/ • http://ebi.missouri.edu/ • http://www.intensiveintervention.org/ • http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html • http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/ • http://explicitinstruction.org/ • http://www.fcrr.org/ • http://www.education.pitt.edu/EducationalResources/Teachers/LEADERS.aspx • http://www.gosbr.net/ • http://www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/ • http://www.freereading.net/ • http://www.bestevidence.org/ • http://www.rti4success.org/ • http://www.readingrockets.org/ • http://www.pbisworld.com/

SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices • http://www.samhsa.gov/nrepp

Blueprints Model and Promising Programs (University of Colorado) • http://www.blueprintsprograms.com/allPrograms.php

Promising Practices Network • http://www.promisingpractices.net

Best Evidence Encyclopedia • http://www.bestevidence.org

Campbell Collaboration • https://campbellcollaboration.org

Center for Intensive Intervention • http://www.intensiveintervention.org

TIERS • http://www.hdc.lsuhsc.edu/tiers/

Resource L is t

new realities

new choiceswww.presencelearning.com

Kim Gibbons, Ph.D.Associate Director for

Innovation and OutreachCenter for Applied Research and

Educational ImprovementUniversity of Minnesota

[email protected]

Getting Results with a Sustainable Multi-Tiered System of Supports Kim Gibbons, Ph.D.

S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. Vanderhayden (Eds.) Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (2nd Edition) New York, NY: Springer http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3

Gibbons, K.. & Coulter, W.A. (2015) Making RtI Stick: Sustaining Implementation Past Your Retirement http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4899-7568-3_36

Gibbons, K. & Brown, S. (2015) Best Practices in Evaluating Psychoeducational Services. In J. Grimes and A. Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology VI. Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists. https://www.amazon.com/Practices-Psychology-Volumes-Sections-Chapters/dp/0932955703

Riley-Tillman, T.C., Burns, M., & Gibbons, K. (2013) Advanced RtI Applications: Assessment, Design, Analysis, and Decision-Making. New York, NY: Guilford. https://www.amazon.com/RTI-Applications-Assessment-Practical-Intervention/dp/1462509142

Burns, M.K, & Gibbons, K. (2012) Implementing Response-to-Intervention in Elementary and Secondary Schools: Procedures to Assure Scientific-Based Practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/Implementing-Response-Intervention-Elementary-Secondary/dp/0415500729

Selected Publ icat ions

new realities

new choiceswww.presencelearning.com

1. Isthecoreprogramsufficient?

2. Ifthecoreprogramisnotsufficient,whyisn’tit?

3. Howwilltheneedsidentifiedinthecorebeaddressed?

4. Howwilltheeffectivenessandefficiencyofthecorebe monitoredovertime?

5. Haveimprovementtothecorebeeneffective?

6. Forwhichstudentsisthecoreprogramsufficientandnot sufficientandwhy?

7. Whatspecificsupplementalandintensiveinstructionisneeded?

8. Howwillsupplementalandintensiveinstructionbedelivered?

9. Howwilleffectivenessofsupplementalandintensive instructionbemonitored?

10. Whichstudentsneedtomovetoadifferentlevelofinstruction?

MTSS TenGuidingQuestions

Compliments of

1 April2015

MTSSEssentialComponentsImplementationWorksheetSchool:_________________________________________________ Date:___________________________________________District:_________________________________________________ Interviewer:_____________________________________PersonsInterviewed:__________________________________________________________________________________________GradesofStudentPopulation:Pre-KK123456789101112TheMTSSEssentialComponentsImplementationRubricandtheMTSSEssentialComponentsImplementationWorksheetareforusebyindividualsresponsibleformonitoringtheschool-levelfidelityofMultipleTieredSystemsofSupport(MTSS)implementation.Theymaybeusedbyschoolsforself-appraisal;however,theywerenotdesignedforcompliancemonitoringandshouldnotbeusedforthispurpose.Therubricandworksheetaredesignedtoconductaneedsassessmentanddevelopaplanforprofessionaldevelopmentandtechnicalassistance.Instructions:Thepurposeofthisworksheetistoprovideaframeworkforcollectingrelevantinformationandforrecordingaschool’sratingsonvariousitemsrelatedtoMTSSimplementation.DescriptionsofratingsforeachitemareprovidedontheMTSSEssentialComponentsImplementationRubric.Informationaboutschool-levelimplementationshouldbecollectedthroughinterviewswithschoolpersonnel,observationsanddocumentreview.Sampleinterviewquestionsandindicatorsofimplementationareprovided.Afteralloftheinformationhasbeencollected,useyournotesandtheMTSSEssentialComponentsImplementationRubrictoratetheschooloneachitem.Therubricprovidesa3-levelratingscaleanddescriptionsofpracticesthatwouldresultinanindicationofNovice,NearingProficientorProficientimplementation.AreasthatindicateimplementationattheNoviceorNearingProficientlevelshouldbeaddressedintheActionPlanningprocess.

2 April2015

Item SampleInterviewQuestions EvidenceofImplementationandNotes Rating(seerubric)

EXPLORATION:Stage1SchoolisactivelyexploringandpreparingforimplementationofMTSS

MTSSOverview WhopresentedanoverviewofMTSStothefaculty?

Whenwastheoverviewpresented?Whatmaterialsorresourceswereusedtopresenttheoverviewtothefaculty?

¨ Dateofoverviewprovided¨ MTMTSSppt.usedtoprovideoverview¨ Allstaffreceivedoverview¨ Onlyteamandadministratorreceivedoverview

¨ Novice¨ Nearing

Proficient¨ Proficient

Consen

sus

Isthereconsensusamongthefaculty/stafftoadoptMTSS?Howhaveyoumeasuredconsensus?Whatprocessdidyougothroughtoachieveconsensus?Whatpercentofstaffsupportadoption?

Consensusisreachedwhenallstakeholdersagreetothefollowing:“Iagreewiththisdecision.”Or“Althoughthisdecisionmaynotbemyfirstchoice,Icanlivewithit.”“Iwillpubliclysupportthisdecision.”“Iwilldomyparttoimplementthedecision.”

¨ Meetingagendaorminutesreflectconsensusprocess¨ Staffsurveyorpoll

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Administrativ

eCo

mmitm

ent

TowhatextentisimplementationofMTSSapriority?DoesyourschoolhavedesignatedandprotectedtimesfortheMTSSLeadershipteamtomeet?WhatpercentofadministratortimeisdesignatedtotheimplementationofMTSS?

¨ Calendarofleadershipteammeetingsestablished¨ Evidencethatmeetingtimeisapriorityandprotected(e.g.master

calendar)¨ Teammeetingminutes

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


3 April2015


Lead

ershipTeam

Areallgradesanddepartmentsrepresentedontheteam?Howoftendoesyourteammeet?Isthemeetingtimeprotectedontheannualcalendar?Doyourecordandmaintainminutesforeachmeeting?DoyouhaveacommunicationprocedurewithComprehensiveSchoolandCommunityTreatment(CSCT)services?

¨ Teamisrepresentativeofgradelevels/departments(alsoincludespara,specialistsi.e.music,art,P.E.)

¨ Teammemberrolesareestablished¨ Apredictablemeetingscheduleisestablished¨ Structuredmeetingagendaformatincludesitemsforscreening,

instructionalplanning,progressmonitoring,evaluatingoutcomedecisions(*reviewcopiesofcompletedagendas)

¨ Meetingandactionplansarethoroughandaccurate(*reviewcopies)

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Administrator

Involvem

ent Howoftendoestheadministratorattendthe

LeadershipTeammeetings?Meetingminutesreflect¨ Administratorattendsallmeetings¨ Administratorattendsmostmeetings¨ Administratorattendanceissporadic¨ Administratordoesnotattendmeeting

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


DataM

anagem

ent

System

Isallscreeningandprogressmonitoringdataenteredintoadatabase?Aredatareportssummarizedthroughvisualpresentation(i.e.,graphs)?Arereportsaccessedeasilytoallowindividual,classroom,gradelevel,andschool-wideanalysis?Arecurrentdataavailableateachmeeting?

¨ Graphedrepresentationofbenchmarkassessments¨ GraphedrepresentationofODRorbehaviorscreeningresults¨ Currentdatapresentedateachmeetingasreflectedinmeeting

minutes¨ Processforcollecting,distributingandelectronicstorageof

benchmarkingdataisclearanddocumented

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Actio

nPlan

Doyouhaveacurrentactionplan?Howoftendoyoureviewtheactionplan?Doesyourprofessionaldevelopmentplanreflecttheneedsreflectedinyouractionplan?

¨ Awrittenactionplanexiststhatincludesimplementationactionsteps,personresponsibleandprojectedcompletiondate.

¨ DocumentationexiststoindicateActionPlanisreviewed3xperyear

¨ ActionPlanincludesprofessionaldevelopmenttosupportimplementation(e.g.,school-widescreening,progressmonitoring,evidencebasedinterventions,differentiatedinstruction)

¨ Actionplanitemsincludesassessmentoffidelity(SAS,SET,BAT,ISSET)

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


4 April2015


UniversalScreening

Whatscreeningmeasuresdoyouuseforreading?Whatscreeningmeasuresdoyouuseformath?Whatscreeningmeasuresdoyouuseforbehavior?Areallstudentsscreenedatthebeginningoftheschoolyear?Doyouconductscreeningthroughouttheyear?Howmanytimes?Isawell-definedcutscoreusedtoidentifystudentsatrisk?Whatisthatcutscore?Isitanationalorlocalcutscore?Doyouconductafollow-upassessmenttoensuretheresultsoftheinitialscreeningareaccurate?Describetheprocessforconductingthescreening.Towhatextentistheprocessconsistentlyfollowed?

¨ Benchmarkassessmentmodelestablished(e.g.,DIBELS,Aimsweb,etc.)

¨ SSDB,ODR,BASC-2,orEarlyWarningSystemusedforsocial/emotionalscreening

¨ Cutpointsestablished¨ Screeningscheduleestablishedasreflectedonmastercalendar¨ Benchmarkdatacollectedandreported3xperyearasreflected

onmastercalendar

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Decisio

nMakingProcess

Describehowdecisionsaremadetomovestudentsbetweenlevels.Whoisinvolvedinthedecision-making?Whatdataareusedtoinformthosedecisionsandhowaretheyused?Whatcriteriaandguidelinesareusedtoinformthosedecisions?Towhatextentarethescreening,progressmonitoringandotherassessmentdatausedtoinforminstructionasalllevels,includingcoreinstruction?

¨ Standardproblemsolvingprotocolused(e.g.,Six-stepProblemSolvingmodel,TIPS)

¨ Benchmarksandcutpointsestablished¨ Pathwaysdevelopedwithcriteriabuiltfromdecisionrulesforall

contentandbehaviorareas¨ GradelevelandMTSSmeetingminutes

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


5 April2015


IMPLEMENTATION:Stage2StructuralsupportsnecessarytoinitiateMTSSareinplace.

Stan

dardsB

ased

Cu

rriculum

Aretheinstructionalmaterialsalignedtothestandards?Aremodelorsamplelessonsandactivitiesthatdemonstrateeffectiveteachingofthestandardsavailabletoteachers?Haveteachersbeentrainedinthecontentofthestandardsandinhowtousethatcontentwithintheirlessons?Areteachersutilizingtheirtrainingandaligningtheirinstructiontothesestandards?

¨ CurriculummaterialssupportEnglish/languageartscontentstandards;90minutereadingblockestablishedatelementarylevel

¨ Curriculummaterialssupportmathcontentstandards¨ Documentationofinstructionalstrategiesareresearch-based

(walk-throughs,curricularfidelitychecks,rubrics)¨ School-widebehaviorexpectationsandsettingsmatrixexists¨ Writtenlessonplansandinstructionalscheduleexistforteacher

school-widebehaviorexpectations.

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Instruction

Towhatextentdoteachersusestudentassessmentdataandknowledgeofstudentreadiness,language,andculturetoofferdifferentteachingandlearningstrategiesthataddressindividualneeds?Towhatextentdoteachersuseaninstructionalhierarchyandcorrespondinginstructionalactivities(i.e.,acquisitionphase,fluencyphase,generalizationphase,andapplicationphase)?Howconsistentisthiseffortamongteachingstaff?

¨ Teachersuseassessmentdatatoidentifystudentinstructionallevelasevidencedbydatasheets/studentfiles

¨ Teachersdifferentiateinstructiontoaccommodatestudentinstructionallevel

¨ Documentationofvalidinstructionalpracticesanddifferentiation(e.g.documentedwalk-through;datasheets/studentfilesdocumentadjustmentsbasedondataandcorrespondingstudentprogress)

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


6 April2015


Prog

ressM

onito

ring

Whattoolsareusedforprogressmonitoring?Doesyourschoolhavedocumentationthatthetoolshavebeenshowntobevalid,reliable,andaccurate?Hasthetoolbeenvalidatedforusewithstudentpopulationssimilartoyours?Doesthescoringmanualorotherinformationprovidedbythevendorprovidebenchmarksforacceptablegrowth?Doesthescoringmanualorotherinformationprovidedbythevendorprovidebenchmarksforminimumend-of-yearperformance?HowfrequentlydoyouconductprogressmonitoringatTierI?TierII?TierIII?Howisassessmentscheduled?Whatproceduresareinplacetoensureaccuracy?

¨ ProgressmonitoringtoolislistedontheNationalCenteronRTIreviewchart

• AimsWeb• DIBELS• STARReading/Math

¨ EarlyWarningSystem¨ SWIS¨ DocumentationofprogressmonitoringatTierI=

Monthly¨ DocumentationofprogressmonitoringatTierII=

Bi-Monthly¨ DocumentationofprogressmonitoringatTierIII=Weekly¨ Evidencethatdecisionrulesbasedoncutpointsapplied

consistently(e.g.,meetingminutes,agendas,studentfile,datasheets)

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


7 April2015


DataDeterminationofRespo

nsiven

essto

InstructionatTierI

Areyouassessingandanalyzingschool-widedataforbehaviorandacademicsaminimumof3timesayeartodetermineresponsivetoTierIinstructions?Doesyourdatareflectapositiveoutcome?AreyouusingaSix-Stepproblemsolvingprocessfordata-baseddecision-making?

BehaviorandAcademicDataManagementTools:¨ AimsWeb¨ DIBELS¨ MAPs¨ STARReading/Math¨ SmarterBalance¨ ISIP¨ EarlyWarningSystem¨ SWIS¨ ODR¨ Other:_________________

ProblemSolvingProcess:¨ Six-Step¨ TIPS¨ MeetingMinutes¨ Other:_________________

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Implem

entatio

nFide

lityTierI

Isthecoreinstructiondeliveredwithfidelity?Ifso,whatevidenceindicatesthis?Arethereproceduresinplacetomonitorthefidelityofimplementation?

¨ Evidenceofpartnerchecks,curricularfidelitychecklists,self-checks

¨ Evidenceofscheduledanddocumentedwalk-throughs,observationsandfidelitychecks

¨ ClassroomCheck-up¨ SETscoresatorabove80/80

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Commun

icationwith

and

Involvem

ento

fParen

ts Howdoyoucommunicatetheessentialcomponents

ofMTSStoparents/family?HowareparentsupdatedonparentsontheprogressofchildrenwhoarereceivingTierIIandTierIIIinterventions?Howdoyouinvolveparentsinthedecision-makingregardingparticipationoftheirchildacrosstheTiers?

¨ DocumentationofparentinformationonessentialcomponentsofMTSS(Informationalbrochures,websites,studenthandbook,parentfocusgroups,letters,videosorPowerPoints)

¨ DocumentationofparentreportprocessandcycleforstudentreceivingTierIIandTierIIIintervention

¨ Documentationofprocedurestoinvolveparentsindecision-makingprocess.

¨ DocumentationofparentparticipationofstudentreceivingTierIIandTierIIIinterventions

¨ Standardsbasedreportcards

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


8 April2015


IMPLEMENTATION:Stage3Allofstage1,stage2,andthefollowing.SchoolisactivelyengagedinimplementingandsupportingMTSS

DataDeterminationtoRTI

atTierIIand

TierIII

Aregraphsusedtodetermineastudent’sresponsetointervention?Aredecisionsaboutwhetherornotastudentisrespondingtointerventionbasedonprogressmonitoring?Arethedecisionsmadebasedontheslopeofastudent’sprogressoronthestudent’sfinalstatusattheendoftheintervention?Arecriteriaimplementedaccuratelyandconsistently?

¨ Evidenceofdatareviewthatincorporatesgraphingconventions(xandyaxes,baseline,interventionphase,goalline,interventiondatapoints),goalsettingandtrendlineanalysis.(e.g.DIBELS,AimsWeb,ISIS)

¨ Documentationofdecisionrules/cutpointsappliedconsistently(e.g.studentfiles/datasheets)

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Eviden

ceBased

TierII

Interven

tions

Whatprograms/proceduresdoesyourschooluseforstrategicinterventions?DothestrategicinterventionssupporttheTierIinstruction?Whatprocessdoyouusetomatchstudentstothecorrectintervention?Havetheseprogramsdemonstratedefficacywiththetargetpopulation(e.g.,hasresearchshownthattheinterventionspositivelyimpactstudentachievementorreportaminimumeffectsize)?

¨ TierIIstrategiesareresearch-based¨ TierIIstrategiescomplementTierIinstruction

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Implem

entatio

nFide

lityTierII Areproceduresinplacetomonitorthefidelityof

implementationofthestrategiclevelinterventions?Ifso,pleasedescribe.Doestheevidenceindicatethattheinterventionisimplementedwithfidelity?

¨ Evidenceoffidelitychecklists¨ Evidencethatinterventionistshavebeentrainedinintervention

andhaveskillsandresourcestoimplement(e.g.professionaldevelopmentplan,workshopartifacts,etc.)

¨ BATscoreatorabove70%

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


9 April2015


Eviden

ceBased

TierIII

Interven

tions Whatevidence-basedinstructionalpracticesare

usedattheintensivelevelofintervention?Aretheintensiveinterventionsmoreintensethanthestrategiclevelintervention?Whatprocessdoyouusetomatchstudentstothecorrectintervention?

¨ Diagnosticassessmenthasbeenadministered¨ Behaviorinterventionsbasedonvalidfunctionalassessmentand

addressthefunctionofthebehavior¨ EvidencethatTierIIIstrategiessupportTierIinstructionandare

implementedinadditiontoparticipationinTierIinstruction.

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Implem

entatin

Fide

lityTierIII Areproceduresinplacetomonitorthefidelityof

implementationoftheintensivelevelinterventions?Howdoyouensurethattheindividualizedinstructionattheintensivelevelincludesevidence-basedinstructionalpractices?

¨ Evidenceofwalk-throughs,self-checks,orcurricularfidelitychecklists

¨ ISSET

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Professio

nalD

evelop

men

t

Howdoesyourschooldeterminewhatprofessionaldevelopmentwouldimprovepractice?Doesyouractionplanincorporateidentifiedprofessionaldevelopmentneeds?Howisprofessionaldevelopmentprovided?Dotheteachersregularlyparticipateinschool-basedprofessionaldevelopmentthatisstructuredsothatteacherscontinuouslyexamine,reflectupon,andimproveinstructionalpractice?Whatpercentageoftheteachingstaffparticipates?

¨ Actionplanincorporatesprofessionaldevelopmentthataddressesidentifiedgapsanddeficienciesthroughassessmentsurveys,benchmarkassessments,staffsurveysandMTSSMonthlyPlanningchecklist

¨ Actionplanincorporatesprofessionaldevelopmentoninstructionand/orinterventionimplementation

¨ SchedulesandpermanentproductsprovideevidenceofongoingprofessionaldevelopmentrelatedtoMTSSimplementationandtrainingplan

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


10 April2015


IMPLEMENTATION:Stage4Allofstage1,stage2,stage3andthefollowingMTSSisfullyoperationalandusedwithallstudents,andalloftheotherrealitiesof“doingschool”withMTSSarebeingmanaged.

Relatio

nshiptoPrim

ary

AreTierIIandTierIIIinterventionsalwaysimplementedasasupplementtoTierIinstruction,ordotheyreplaceTierIinstructionforsomestudents?HowdoyoudecideifastudentreceivingTierIIorTierIIIinterventionshouldremaininTierIinstruction?HowdoyouensuremeaningfulconnectionsexistbetweenadvancedtiersinterventionandTierIinstruction?

¨ Documentationthatdecisionsaremadeonacase-by-casebasis(meetingminutes,individualstudentplanorbehaviorsupportplan)

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Cultu

rally&Linguistically

Respon

sive

WhateffortshavebeenmadetoensurethatTierIinstruction,strategicandintensivelevelinterventionstakeintoaccountcultural,linguistic,andsocioeconomicfactorsforstudents?

¨ DocumentationthatIndianEducationForAllisincludedinTierIinstruction

¨ Evidenceofeffortstoaddresscultural,linguisticandsocioeconomicfactorsforstudentsinstrategicandintensiveinterventions

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


11 April2015


Stud

entO

utcomes WhatpercentofyourenrollmentreceivesonlyTierI

instruction?WhatpercentofyourenrollmentreceivesTierIIintervention?WhatpercentofyourenrollmentreceivesTierIIIintervention?HavestudentsbeenabletomovefromadvancedtiersbacktoTier1instructionthisyear?

¨ Dataordocumentationsupportspositiveacademicstudentoutcomesinalltiers(School-widedata)

¨ Dataordocumentationthatthereisadecreaseininappropriatebehaviors(majors,minors,TierIIandTierIIIinterventionreports)

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


SUSTAINABILITY:Stage5School/DistrictensuresthecontinueduseandeffectivenessofMTSSimplementation

Lead

ership

TowhatextendisthedistrictawareoftheMTSSframeworkatyourschool?TowhatextentdotheactionstakenanddecisionsmadebydistrictadministratorsimprovetheeffectivenessofMTSSatyourschool?TowhatextentdotheactionstakenanddecisionsmadebythebuildingadministratorsimprovetheeffectivenessofMTSSatyourschool?DoesyourschoolhaveadesignatedpersontooverseeandmanageMTSSimplementation?Ifyes,whatpercentageofthatperson’stimeisdevotedtooverseeingandmanagingMTSS?

¨ DocumentationthatshowsDistrictactionssupportMTSSimplementation(professionaldevelopmentplan)

¨ MTSSHandbook¨ AwrittenjobdescriptionthatoutlinesthedutiesofanMTSS

facilitatorintheschool

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


StaffQ

ualifications Describethetrainingandqualificationsforstaffthat

providestrategicandintensiveinterventions.Whatongoingprofessionaldevelopmentisavailabletostaffwhoprovidestrategicandintensiveinterventions?WhatongoingprofessionaldevelopmentisavailabletonewstaffontheMTSSprocess?

¨ EvidenceoftrainingonTierIIandTierIIIinterventions¨ Scheduledprofessionaldevelopmentdaystosupport

implementation(e.g.progressmonitoring,effectiveteaching,interventionfidelity)

¨ Newstafftraining

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


12 April2015


Policy

HowmuchoftheMTSSprocesshasbeenincorporatedintheschoolprocedures?

¨ MTSShandbookhasbeendevelopedthatincludessamplesofforms,inventories,maps,fidelitychecks,glossary,etc.

¨ Schoolimprovementplan,fiveyearplan¨ Documentationthatcriticalfeaturesofprogressmonitoringare

codifiedandincorporatedinSchoolHandbook¨ Documentationthatcriticalfeaturesofofficereferralprocedures

arecodifiedandincorporatedinSchoolHandbook¨ Documentationthatcutpointsanddatadecisionprocessis

codifiedandincorporatedinSchoolHandbook

¨ Novice¨ Nearing


Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n

RTI

Fid

elity

of I

mpl

emen

tatio

n R

ubric

—1

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4 A

mer

ican

Inst

itute

s for

Res

earc

h. A

ll rig

hts r

eser

ved.

20

94_0

5/14

RTI Fidelity of Im

plem

entation

Rub

ric

The

Res

pons

e to

Inte

rven

tion

(RTI

) Fid

elity

Rub

ric is

for u

se b

y in

divi

dual

s who

are

resp

onsi

ble

for m

onito

ring

scho

ol-le

vel f

idel

ity

of R

TI im

plem

enta

tion.

The

rubr

ic is

alig

ned

with

the

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f RTI

and

the

infr

astru

ctur

e th

at is

nec

essa

ry fo

r su

cces

sful

impl

emen

tatio

n. It

is a

ccom

pani

ed b

y a

wor

kshe

et w

ith g

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

and

scor

e po

ints

for u

se in

an

inte

rvie

w w

ith a

scho

ol’s R

TI le

adersh

ip te

am.

Asse

ssm

ents—

Scre

enin

g, p

rogr

ess m

onito

ring,

and

oth

er su

ppor

ting

asse

ssm

ents

are

use

d to

info

rm d

ata-

base

d de

cisio

n m

akin

g.

Mea

sure

s 1

3 5

Scre

enin

g—Th

e RT

I fra

mew

ork

accu

rate

ly id

entif

ies s

tude

nts a

t risk

of p

oor l

earn

ing

outc

omes

or c

halle

ngin

g be

havi

ors.

Sc

reen

ing

Tool

s In

suff

icie

nt e

vide

nce

that

the

scre

enin

g to

ols a

re re

liabl

e, c

orre

latio

ns b

etw

een

the

inst

rum

ents

and

val

ued

outc

omes

ar

e str

ong,

and

pre

dict

ions

of r

isk

stat

us

are

accu

rate

.

Evid

ence

indi

cate

s tha

t the

scre

enin

g to

ols a

re re

liabl

e, c

orre

latio

ns b

etw

een

the

inst

rum

ents

and

val

ued

outc

omes

ar

e str

ong,

and

pre

dict

ions

of r

isk

stat

us

are

accu

rate

, but

staf

f is u

nabl

e to

ar

ticul

ate

the

supp

ortin

g ev

iden

ce.

Evid

ence

indi

cate

s tha

t the

scre

enin

g to

ols a

re re

liabl

e, c

orre

latio

ns b

etw

een

the

inst

rum

ents

and

val

ued

outc

omes

ar

e str

ong,

and

pre

dict

ions

of r

isk

stat

us

are

accu

rate

, and

staf

f is a

ble

to

artic

ulat

e th

e su

ppor

ting

evid

ence

. U

nive

rsal

Sc

reen

ing

O

ne o

r non

e of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

scre

enin

g is

cond

ucte

d fo

r all

stude

nts (

i.e.,

is un

iver

sal);

(2) p

roce

dure

s ar

e in

plac

e to

ensu

re im

plem

enta

tion

accu

racy

(i.e.

, all

stude

nts a

re te

sted,

sc

ores

are a

ccur

ate,

cut p

oint

s/dec

ision

s ar

e acc

urat

e); a

nd (3

) a p

roce

ss to

scre

en

all s

tude

nts o

ccur

s mor

e tha

n on

ce p

er

year

(e.g

., fa

ll, w

inte

r, sp

ring)

.

Two

of th

e fol

low

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) scr

eeni

ng is

cond

ucte

d fo

r all

stude

nts

(i.e.,

is u

nive

rsal

); (2

) pro

cedu

res a

re in

pl

ace t

o en

sure

impl

emen

tatio

n ac

cura

cy

(i.e.,

all s

tude

nts a

re te

sted,

scor

es ar

e ac

cura

te, c

ut p

oint

s/dec

ision

s are

ac

cura

te);

and

(3) a

pro

cess

to sc

reen

all

stude

nts o

ccur

s mor

e tha

n on

ce p

er y

ear

(e.g

., fa

ll, w

inte

r, sp

ring)

.

All

of th

e fol

low

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) scr

eeni

ng is

cond

ucte

d fo

r all

stude

nts

(i.e.,

is u

nive

rsal

); (2

) pro

cedu

res a

re in

pl

ace t

o en

sure

impl

emen

tatio

n ac

cura

cy

(i.e.,

all s

tude

nts a

re te

sted,

scor

es ar

e ac

cura

te, c

ut p

oint

s/dec

ision

s are

ac

cura

te);

and

(3) a

pro

cess

to sc

reen

all

stude

nts o

ccur

s mor

e tha

n on

ce p

er y

ear

(e.g

., fa

ll, w

inte

r, sp

ring)

. D

ata

Poin

ts to

V

erify

Risk

Sc

reen

ing

data

are

not

use

d or

are

use

d al

one

to v

erify

dec

isio

ns a

bout

whe

ther

a

stud

ent i

s or i

s not

at r

isk.

Scre

enin

g da

ta a

re u

sed

in c

once

rt w

ith

at le

ast o

ne o

ther

dat

a so

urce

(e.g

., cl

assr

oom

per

form

ance

, cur

ricul

um-

base

d as

sess

men

t, pe

rfor

man

ce o

n st

ate

Scre

enin

g da

ta a

re u

sed

in c

once

rt w

ith

at le

ast t

wo

othe

r dat

a so

urce

s (e.

g.,

clas

sroo

m p

erfo

rman

ce, p

erfo

rman

ce o

n st

ate

asse

ssm

ents

, dia

gnos

tic a

sses

smen

t

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

2

asse

ssm

ents

, dia

gnos

tic a

sses

smen

t da

ta, s

hort-

term

pro

gres

s mon

itorin

g) to

ve

rify

deci

sion

s abo

ut w

heth

er a

stud

ent

is o

r is n

ot a

t ris

k.

data

, sho

rt-te

rm p

rogr

ess m

onito

ring)

to

verif

y de

cisi

ons a

bout

whe

ther

a st

uden

t is

or i

s not

at r

isk.

Prog

ress

Mon

itorin

g—O

ngoi

ng a

nd fr

eque

nt m

onito

ring

of p

rogr

ess q

uant

ifies

rate

s of i

mpr

ovem

ent a

nd in

form

s ins

truc

tiona

l pra

ctic

e an

d th

e de

velo

pmen

t of i

ndiv

idua

lized

pro

gram

s. M

easu

res a

re a

ppro

pria

te fo

r the

stud

ent’s

gra

de a

nd/o

r ski

ll le

vel.

Prog

ress

-M

onito

ring

To

ols

Sele

cted

pro

gres

s-m

onito

ring

tool

s mee

t no

mor

e th

an o

ne o

f the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

: (1)

hav

e su

ffic

ient

num

ber o

f al

tern

ate

form

s of e

qual

and

con

trolle

d di

ffic

ulty

to a

llow

for p

rogr

ess

mon

itorin

g at

reco

mm

ende

d in

terv

als

base

d on

inte

rven

tion

leve

l; (2

) spe

cify

m

inim

um a

ccep

tabl

e gr

owth

; (3)

pr

ovid

e be

nchm

arks

for m

inim

um

acce

ptab

le e

nd-o

f-ye

ar p

erfo

rman

ce;

and

(4) r

elia

bilit

y an

d va

lidity

in

form

atio

n fo

r the

per

form

ance

-leve

l sc

ore

is a

vaila

ble.

Sele

cted

pro

gres

s-m

onito

ring

tool

s mee

t tw

o or

thre

e of

the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

: (1

) hav

e su

ffic

ient

num

ber o

f alte

rnat

e fo

rms o

f equ

al a

nd c

ontro

lled

diff

icul

ty

to a

llow

for p

rogr

ess m

onito

ring

at

reco

mm

ende

d in

terv

als b

ased

on

inte

rven

tion

leve

l; (2

) spe

cify

min

imum

ac

cept

able

gro

wth

; (3)

pro

vide

be

nchm

arks

for m

inim

um a

ccep

tabl

e en

d-of

-yea

r per

form

ance

; and

(4)

relia

bilit

y an

d va

lidity

info

rmat

ion

for

the

perf

orm

ance

-leve

l sco

re is

ava

ilabl

e.

Sele

cted

pro

gres

s-m

onito

ring

tool

s mee

t al

l of t

he fo

llow

ing

crite

ria: (

1) h

ave

suff

icie

nt n

umbe

r of a

ltern

ate

form

s of

equa

l and

con

trolle

d di

ffic

ulty

to a

llow

fo

r pro

gres

s mon

itorin

g at

re

com

men

ded

inte

rval

s bas

ed o

n in

terv

entio

n le

vel;

(2) s

peci

fy m

inim

um

acce

ptab

le g

row

th; (

3) p

rovi

de

benc

hmar

ks fo

r min

imum

acc

epta

ble

end-

of-y

ear p

erfo

rman

ce; a

nd (4

) re

liabi

lity

and

valid

ity in

form

atio

n fo

r th

e pe

rfor

man

ce-le

vel s

core

is a

vaila

ble

and

staf

f is a

ble

to a

rticu

late

the

supp

ortin

g ev

iden

ce.

Prog

ress

-M

onito

ring

Pr

oces

s

Nei

ther

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

pro

gres

s mon

itorin

g oc

curs

at

leas

t mon

thly

for s

tude

nts r

ecei

ving

se

cond

ary-

leve

l int

erve

ntio

n an

d at

leas

t w

eekl

y fo

r stu

dent

s rec

eivi

ng in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion;

and

(2) p

roce

dure

s are

in

plac

e to

ens

ure

impl

emen

tatio

n ac

cura

cy (i

.e.,

appr

opria

te st

uden

ts a

re

test

ed, s

core

s are

acc

urat

e, d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

rule

s are

app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

).

Onl

y on

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) p

rogr

ess m

onito

ring

occu

rs a

t le

ast m

onth

ly fo

r stu

dent

s rec

eivi

ng

seco

ndar

y-le

vel i

nter

vent

ion

and

at le

ast

wee

kly

for s

tude

nts r

ecei

ving

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n; a

nd (2

) pro

cedu

res a

re in

pl

ace

to e

nsur

e im

plem

enta

tion

accu

racy

(i.e

., ap

prop

riate

stud

ents

are

te

sted

, sco

res a

re a

ccur

ate,

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g ru

les a

re a

pplie

d co

nsis

tent

ly).

Bot

h of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

pro

gres

s mon

itorin

g oc

curs

at

leas

t mon

thly

for s

tude

nts r

ecei

ving

se

cond

ary-

leve

l int

erve

ntio

n an

d at

leas

t w

eekl

y fo

r stu

dent

s rec

eivi

ng in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion;

and

(2) p

roce

dure

s are

in

plac

e to

ens

ure

impl

emen

tatio

n ac

cura

cy (i

.e.,

appr

opria

te st

uden

ts a

re

test

ed, s

core

s are

acc

urat

e, d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

rule

s are

app

lied

cons

iste

ntly

).

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

3

Dat

a-Ba

sed

Dec

ision

Mak

ing—

Dat

a-ba

sed

deci

sion-

mak

ing

proc

esse

s are

use

d to

info

rm in

struc

tion,

mov

emen

t with

in th

e m

ultil

evel

sy

stem

, and

disa

bilit

y id

entif

icat

ion

(in a

ccor

danc

e wi

th st

ate

law)

. M

easu

res

1 3

5 D

ecisi

on-

Mak

ing

Proc

ess

The

mec

hani

sm fo

r mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out t

he p

artic

ipat

ion

of st

uden

ts in

the

inst

ruct

ion/

inte

rven

tion

leve

ls m

eets

no

mor

e th

an o

ne o

f the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

: Th

e pr

oces

s (1)

is d

ata-

driv

en a

nd b

ased

on

val

idat

ed m

etho

ds; (

2) in

volv

es a

br

oad

base

of s

take

hold

ers;

and

(3) i

s op

erat

iona

lized

with

cle

ar, e

stab

lishe

d de

cisi

on ru

les (

e.g.

, mov

emen

t bet

wee

n le

vels

or t

iers

, det

erm

inat

ion

of

appr

opria

te in

stru

ctio

n or

inte

rven

tions

).

The

mec

hani

sm fo

r mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out t

he p

artic

ipat

ion

of st

uden

ts in

the

inst

ruct

ion/

inte

rven

tion

leve

ls m

eets

tw

o of

the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

: The

pr

oces

s (1)

is d

ata-

driv

en a

nd b

ased

on

valid

ated

met

hods

; (2)

invo

lves

a b

road

ba

se o

f sta

keho

lder

s; a

nd (3

) is

oper

atio

naliz

ed w

ith c

lear

, est

ablis

hed

deci

sion

rule

s (e.

g., m

ovem

ent b

etw

een

leve

ls o

r tie

rs, d

eter

min

atio

n of

ap

prop

riate

inst

ruct

ion

or in

terv

entio

ns).

The

mec

hani

sm fo

r mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out t

he p

artic

ipat

ion

of st

uden

ts in

the

inst

ruct

ion/

inte

rven

tion

leve

ls m

eets

all

of th

e fo

llow

ing

crite

ria: T

he p

roce

ss

(1) i

s dat

a-dr

iven

and

bas

ed o

n va

lidat

ed m

etho

ds; (

2) in

volv

es a

bro

ad

base

of s

take

hold

ers;

and

(3) i

s op

erat

iona

lized

with

cle

ar, e

stab

lishe

d de

cisi

on ru

les (

e.g.

, mov

emen

t bet

wee

n le

vels

or t

iers

, det

erm

inat

ion

of

appr

opria

te in

stru

ctio

n or

inte

rven

tions

). D

ata

Syst

em

A d

ata

syst

em is

in p

lace

that

mee

ts tw

o or

few

er o

f the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons:

(1

) the

syst

em a

llow

s use

rs to

doc

umen

t an

d ac

cess

indi

vidu

al st

uden

t- le

vel d

ata

(incl

udin

g sc

reen

ing

and

prog

ress

-m

onito

ring

data

) and

inst

ruct

iona

l de

cisi

ons;

(2) d

ata

are

ente

red

in a

tim

ely

man

ner;

(3) d

ata

can

be

repr

esen

ted

grap

hica

lly; a

nd (4

) the

re is

a

proc

ess f

or se

tting

/eva

luat

ing

goal

s.

A d

ata

syst

em is

in p

lace

that

mee

ts

thre

e of

the

follo

win

g fo

ur c

ondi

tions

: (1

) the

syst

em a

llow

s use

rs to

doc

umen

t an

d ac

cess

indi

vidu

al st

uden

t-lev

el d

ata

(incl

udin

g sc

reen

ing

and

prog

ress

-m

onito

ring

data

) and

inst

ruct

iona

l de

cisi

ons;

(2) d

ata

are

ente

red

in a

tim

ely

man

ner;

(3) d

ata

can

be

repr

esen

ted

grap

hica

lly; a

nd (4

) the

re is

a

proc

ess f

or se

tting

/eva

luat

ing

goal

s.

A d

ata

syst

em is

in p

lace

that

mee

ts a

ll of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons:

(1) t

he

syst

em a

llow

s use

rs to

doc

umen

t and

ac

cess

indi

vidu

al st

uden

t-lev

el d

ata

(incl

udin

g sc

reen

ing

and

prog

ress

-m

onito

ring

data

) and

inst

ruct

iona

l de

cisi

ons;

(2) d

ata

are

ente

red

in a

tim

ely

man

ner;

(3) d

ata

can

be

repr

esen

ted

grap

hica

lly; a

nd (4

) the

re is

a

proc

ess f

or se

tting

/eva

luat

ing

goal

s. R

espo

nsiv

enes

s to

Sec

onda

ry

and

Inte

nsiv

e Le

vels

of

Inte

rven

tion

Nei

ther

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

dec

isio

ns a

bout

resp

onsi

vene

ss

to in

terv

entio

n ar

e ba

sed

on re

liabl

e an

d va

lid p

rogr

ess-

mon

itorin

g da

ta th

at

refle

ct sl

ope

of im

prov

emen

t or

prog

ress

tow

ard

the

atta

inm

ent o

f a g

oal

at th

e en

d of

the

inte

rven

tion;

and

(2

) the

se d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

crite

ria a

re

impl

emen

ted

accu

rate

ly.

Onl

y on

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) d

ecis

ions

abo

ut re

spon

sive

ness

to

inte

rven

tion

are

base

d on

relia

ble

and

valid

pro

gres

s-m

onito

ring

data

that

re

flect

slop

e of

impr

ovem

ent o

r pr

ogre

ss to

war

d th

e at

tain

men

t of a

goa

l at

the

end

of th

e in

terv

entio

n; a

nd

(2) t

hese

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g cr

iteria

are

im

plem

ente

d ac

cura

tely

.

Bot

h of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

dec

isio

ns a

bout

resp

onsi

vene

ss

to in

terv

entio

n ar

e ba

sed

on re

liabl

e an

d va

lid p

rogr

ess-

mon

itorin

g da

ta th

at

refle

ct sl

ope

of im

prov

emen

t or

prog

ress

tow

ard

the

atta

inm

ent o

f a g

oal

at th

e en

d of

the

inte

rven

tion;

and

(2

) the

se d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

crite

ria a

re

impl

emen

ted

accu

rate

ly.

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

4

Mul

tilev

el In

struc

tion—

The

RTI f

ram

ewor

k in

clud

es a

scho

ol-w

ide,

mul

tilev

el sy

stem

of i

nstr

uctio

n an

d in

terv

entio

ns fo

r pre

vent

ing

scho

ol

failu

re. C

omm

only

repr

esen

ted

by th

e th

ree-

tiere

d tri

angl

e, m

ultil

evel

instr

uctio

n al

so is

kno

wn a

s the

mul

ti-tie

red

syste

m o

f sup

port

(MTS

S).

Mea

sure

s 1

3 5

Prim

ary-

Leve

l Ins

truct

ion/

Core

Cur

ricul

um

(Tie

r I)

Res

earc

h-Ba

sed

Cur

ricu

lum

M

ater

ials

Few

cor

e cu

rric

ulum

mat

eria

ls a

re

rese

arch

bas

ed fo

r the

targ

et p

opul

atio

n of

lear

ners

(inc

ludi

ng su

bgro

ups)

.

Som

e co

re c

urric

ulum

mat

eria

ls a

re

rese

arch

bas

ed fo

r the

targ

et p

opul

atio

n of

lear

ners

(inc

ludi

ng su

bgro

ups)

.

All

core

cur

ricul

um m

ater

ials

are

re

sear

ch b

ased

for t

he ta

rget

pop

ulat

ion

of le

arne

rs (i

nclu

ding

subg

roup

s).

Art

icul

atio

n of

Te

achi

ng a

nd

Lear

ning

(in

and

acro

ss

grad

e lev

els)

Nei

ther

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

ob

ject

ives

are

wel

l arti

cula

ted

from

one

gr

ade

to a

noth

er; a

nd (2

) tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng is

wel

l arti

cula

ted

with

in g

rade

le

vels

so th

at st

uden

ts h

ave

high

ly

sim

ilar e

xper

ienc

es, r

egar

dles

s of t

heir

assi

gned

teac

her.

Onl

y on

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

obje

ctiv

es a

re w

ell a

rticu

late

d fr

om o

ne

grad

e to

ano

ther

; and

(2) t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

is w

ell a

rticu

late

d w

ithin

gra

de

leve

ls so

that

stud

ents

hav

e hi

ghly

si

mila

r exp

erie

nces

, reg

ardl

ess o

f the

ir as

sign

ed te

ache

r.

Bot

h of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

ob

ject

ives

are

wel

l arti

cula

ted

from

one

gr

ade

to a

noth

er; a

nd (2

) tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng is

wel

l arti

cula

ted

with

in g

rade

le

vels

so th

at st

uden

ts h

ave

high

ly

sim

ilar e

xper

ienc

es, r

egar

dles

s of t

heir

assi

gned

teac

her.

Diff

eren

tiate

d In

stru

ctio

n

Nei

ther

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

inte

rvie

wed

staf

f can

des

crib

e ho

w m

ost t

each

ers i

n th

e sc

hool

di

ffer

entia

te in

stru

ctio

n fo

r stu

dent

s on,

be

low

, or a

bove

gra

de le

vel;

and

(2) i

nter

view

ed st

aff c

an e

xpla

in h

ow

mos

t tea

cher

s in

the

scho

ol u

se st

uden

t da

ta to

iden

tify

and

addr

ess t

he n

eeds

of

stud

ents

.

Onl

y on

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) in

terv

iew

ed st

aff c

an d

escr

ibe

how

mos

t tea

cher

s in

the

scho

ol

diff

eren

tiate

inst

ruct

ion

for s

tude

nts o

n,

belo

w, o

r abo

ve g

rade

leve

l; an

d (2

) int

ervi

ewed

staf

f can

exp

lain

how

m

ost t

each

ers i

n th

e sc

hool

use

stud

ent

data

to id

entif

y an

d ad

dres

s the

nee

ds o

f st

uden

ts.

Bot

h of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

inte

rvie

wed

staf

f can

des

crib

e ho

w m

ost t

each

ers i

n th

e sc

hool

di

ffer

entia

te in

stru

ctio

n fo

r stu

dent

s on,

be

low

, or a

bove

gra

de le

vel;

and

(2) i

nter

view

ed st

aff c

an e

xpla

in h

ow

mos

t tea

cher

s in

the

scho

ol u

se d

ata

to

iden

tify

and

addr

ess t

he n

eeds

of

stud

ents

. St

anda

rds-

Base

d Th

e co

re c

urric

ulum

(rea

ding

and

m

athe

mat

ics)

is n

ot a

ligne

d w

ith th

e C

omm

on C

ore

or o

ther

stat

e st

anda

rds.

The

core

cur

ricul

um (r

eadi

ng a

nd

mat

hem

atic

s) is

par

tially

alig

ned

with

th

e C

omm

on C

ore

or o

ther

stat

e st

anda

rds.

The

core

cur

ricul

um (r

eadi

ng a

nd

mat

hem

atic

s) is

alig

ned

with

the

Com

mon

Cor

e or

oth

er st

ate

stan

dard

s.

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

5

Exce

edin

g Be

nchm

ark

Nei

ther

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

the

scho

ol p

rovi

des e

nric

hmen

t op

portu

nitie

s for

stud

ents

exc

eedi

ng

benc

hmar

ks; a

nd (2

) tea

cher

s im

plem

ent t

hose

opp

ortu

nitie

s co

nsis

tent

ly a

t all

grad

e le

vels

.

One

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is m

et:

(1) t

he sc

hool

pro

vide

s enr

ichm

ent

oppo

rtuni

ties f

or st

uden

ts e

xcee

ding

be

nchm

arks

; and

(2) t

each

ers

impl

emen

t tho

se o

ppor

tuni

ties

cons

iste

ntly

at a

ll gr

ade

leve

ls.

Bot

h of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

the

scho

ol p

rovi

des e

nric

hmen

t op

portu

nitie

s for

stud

ents

exc

eedi

ng

benc

hmar

ks; a

nd (2

) tea

cher

s im

plem

ent t

hose

opp

ortu

nitie

s co

nsis

tent

ly a

t all

grad

e le

vels

. Se

cond

ary-

Leve

l Int

erve

ntio

n (T

ier I

I)

Evid

ence

-Bas

ed

Inte

rven

tion

Se

cond

ary-

leve

l int

erve

ntio

ns a

re n

ot

evid

ence

bas

ed in

con

tent

are

as a

nd

grad

e le

vels

whe

re th

ey a

re a

vaila

ble.

Som

e se

cond

ary-

leve

l int

erve

ntio

ns a

re

evid

ence

bas

ed in

con

tent

are

as a

nd

grad

e le

vels

whe

re th

ey a

re a

vaila

ble.

All

seco

ndar

y-le

vel i

nter

vent

ions

are

ev

iden

ce b

ased

in c

onte

nt a

reas

and

gr

ade

leve

ls w

here

they

are

ava

ilabl

e.

Com

plem

ents

C

ore

Inst

ruct

ion

Se

cond

ary-

leve

l int

erve

ntio

n is

poo

rly

alig

ned

with

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n an

d in

corp

orat

es d

iffer

ent t

opic

s, ev

en

thou

gh th

ose

topi

cs a

re n

ot fo

unda

tiona

l sk

ills t

hat s

uppo

rt co

re p

rogr

am le

arni

ng

obje

ctiv

es.

Seco

ndar

y-le

vel i

nter

vent

ion

inco

rpor

ates

foun

datio

nal s

kills

, but

th

ese

only

occ

asio

nally

alig

n w

ith th

e le

arni

ng o

bjec

tives

of c

ore

inst

ruct

ion.

Seco

ndar

y-le

vel i

nter

vent

ion

is w

ell

alig

ned

with

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n an

d in

corp

orat

es fo

unda

tiona

l ski

lls th

at

supp

ort t

he le

arni

ng o

bjec

tives

of c

ore

inst

ruct

ion.

Inst

ruct

iona

l C

hara

cter

istic

s O

ne o

r non

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons

is m

et: (

1) in

terv

entio

ns a

re

stan

dard

ized

; (2)

seco

ndar

y-le

vel

inte

rven

tions

are

led

by st

aff t

rain

ed in

th

e in

terv

entio

n ac

cord

ing

to d

evel

oper

re

quire

men

ts; a

nd (3

) gro

up si

ze a

nd

dosa

ge a

re o

ptim

al (a

ccor

ding

to

rese

arch

) for

the

age

and

need

s of

stud

ents

.

Two

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

m

et: (

1) in

terv

entio

ns a

re st

anda

rdiz

ed;

(2) s

econ

dary

-leve

l int

erve

ntio

ns a

re le

d by

staf

f tra

ined

in th

e in

terv

entio

n ac

cord

ing

to d

evel

oper

requ

irem

ents

; an

d (3

) gro

up si

ze a

nd d

osag

e ar

e op

timal

(acc

ordi

ng to

rese

arch

) for

the

age

and

need

s of s

tude

nts.

All

thre

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

inte

rven

tions

are

stan

dard

ized

; (2

) sec

onda

ry-le

vel i

nter

vent

ions

are

led

by st

aff t

rain

ed in

the

inte

rven

tion

acco

rdin

g to

dev

elop

er re

quire

men

ts;

and

(3) g

roup

size

and

dos

age

are

optim

al (a

ccor

ding

to re

sear

ch) f

or th

e ag

e an

d ne

eds o

f stu

dent

s.

Add

ition

to

Prim

ary

Se

cond

ary-

leve

l int

erve

ntio

ns re

plac

e co

re in

stru

ctio

n.

Seco

ndar

y-le

vel i

nter

vent

ions

so

met

imes

supp

lem

ent c

ore

inst

ruct

ion

and

som

etim

es re

plac

e co

re in

stru

ctio

n.

Seco

ndar

y-le

vel i

nter

vent

ions

su

pple

men

t cor

e in

stru

ctio

n.

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

6

Inte

nsiv

e In

terv

entio

n—In

divi

dual

ized

with

a fo

cus o

n th

e ac

adem

ic n

eeds

of s

tude

nts w

ith d

isabi

litie

s and

thos

e sig

nific

antly

bel

ow g

rade

leve

l (T

ier I

II)

Dat

a-Ba

sed

Inte

rven

tions

A

dapt

ed B

ased

on

Stu

dent

Nee

d

Inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

ns a

re n

ot m

ore

inte

nsiv

e (e

.g.,

no in

crea

se in

dur

atio

n or

freq

uenc

y, c

hang

e in

inte

rven

tioni

st,

chan

ge in

gro

up si

ze, o

r cha

nge

in

inte

rven

tion)

than

seco

ndar

y in

terv

entio

ns.

Inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

ns a

re m

ore

inte

nsiv

e th

an se

cond

ary

inte

rven

tions

ba

sed

only

on

pres

et m

etho

ds to

in

crea

se in

tens

ity (e

.g.,

sole

relia

nce

on

incr

ease

d du

ratio

n or

freq

uenc

y, c

hang

e in

inte

rven

tioni

st, d

ecre

ased

gro

up si

ze,

or c

hang

e in

inte

rven

tion

prog

ram

).

Inte

nsiv

e int

erve

ntio

ns ar

e m

ore i

nten

sive

than

seco

ndar

y in

terv

entio

ns an

d ar

e ad

apte

d to

addr

ess i

ndiv

idua

l stu

dent

ne

eds i

n a n

umbe

r of w

ays (

e.g.,

incr

ease

d du

ratio

n or

freq

uenc

y, ch

ange

in

inte

rven

tioni

st, d

ecre

ased

gro

up si

ze,

chan

ge in

instr

uctio

nal d

eliv

ery,

and

chan

ge in

type

of i

nter

vent

ion)

thro

ugh

an

itera

tive

man

ner b

ased

on

stude

nt d

ata.

In

stru

ctio

nal

Cha

ract

erist

ics

Non

e of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is m

et:

(1) t

he in

terv

entio

n is

indi

vidu

aliz

ed; (

2)

inte

nsiv

e int

erve

ntio

ns ar

e le

d by

wel

l-tra

ined

staf

f exp

erie

nced

in

indi

vidu

aliz

ing

instr

uctio

n ba

sed

on

stude

nt d

ata;

and

(3) t

he g

roup

size

is

optim

al (a

ccor

ding

to re

sear

ch) f

or th

e ag

e and

nee

ds o

f stu

dent

s.

Onl

y on

e of

the f

ollo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) th

e int

erve

ntio

n is

indi

vidu

aliz

ed;

(2) i

nten

sive i

nter

vent

ions

are l

ed b

y w

ell-

train

ed st

aff e

xper

ienc

ed in

in

divi

dual

izin

g in

struc

tion

base

d on

stu

dent

dat

a; an

d (3

) the

gro

up si

ze is

op

timal

(acc

ordi

ng to

rese

arch

) for

the

age a

nd n

eeds

of s

tude

nts.

All

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) the

inte

rven

tion

is in

divi

dual

ized

; (2

) int

ensi

ve in

terv

entio

ns a

re le

d by

w

ell-t

rain

ed st

aff e

xper

ienc

ed in

in

divi

dual

izin

g in

stru

ctio

n ba

sed

on

stud

ent d

ata;

and

(3) t

he g

roup

size

is

optim

al (a

ccor

ding

to re

sear

ch) f

or th

e ag

e an

d ne

eds o

f stu

dent

s. R

elat

ions

hip

to

Prim

ary

N

eith

er o

f the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) d

ecis

ions

rega

rdin

g st

uden

t pa

rtici

patio

n in

bot

h co

re in

stru

ctio

n an

d in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion

are

mad

e on

a

case

-by-

case

bas

is, a

ccor

ding

to st

uden

t ne

ed; a

nd (2

) int

ensi

ve in

terv

entio

ns a

re

alig

ned

to th

e sp

ecifi

c sk

ill n

eeds

of

stud

ents

to h

elp

them

mak

e pr

ogre

ss

tow

ard

core

cur

ricul

um st

anda

rds.

Onl

y on

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) d

ecisi

ons r

egar

ding

stud

ent

parti

cipa

tion

in b

oth

core

instr

uctio

n an

d in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion

are

mad

e on

a

case

-by-

case

bas

is, a

ccor

ding

to st

uden

t ne

ed; a

nd (2

) int

ensiv

e in

terv

entio

ns

addr

ess t

he g

ener

al e

duca

tion

curri

culu

m

in a

n ap

prop

riate

man

ner f

or st

uden

ts.

Both

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) dec

ision

s reg

ardi

ng st

uden

t pa

rtici

patio

n in

bot

h co

re in

struc

tion

and

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n ar

e m

ade

on a

ca

se-b

y-ca

se b

asis,

acc

ordi

ng to

stud

ent

need

; and

(2) i

nten

sive

inte

rven

tions

ad

dres

s the

gen

eral

edu

catio

n cu

rricu

lum

in

an

appr

opria

te m

anne

r for

stud

ents.

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

7

Infr

astru

ctur

e an

d Su

ppor

t Mec

hani

sms—

Know

ledg

e, re

sour

ces,

and

orga

niza

tiona

l stru

ctur

es n

eces

sary

to o

pera

tiona

lize

all

com

pone

nts o

f RTI

in a

uni

fied

syste

m to

mee

t the

esta

blish

ed g

oals

. M

easu

res

1 3

5 Pr

even

tion

Focu

s St

aff g

ener

ally

per

ceiv

es R

TI a

s a

prog

ram

that

sole

ly su

ppor

ts th

e pr

eref

erra

l pro

cess

for s

peci

al

educ

atio

n.

Som

e st

aff u

nder

stan

d th

at R

TI is

a

fram

ewor

k to

pre

vent

all

stud

ents

, in

clud

ing

stud

ents

with

disa

bilit

ies,

from

hav

ing

acad

emic

pro

blem

s.

All

staf

f und

erst

and

that

RTI

is a

fr

amew

ork

to p

reve

nt a

ll st

uden

ts,

incl

udin

g st

uden

ts w

ith d

isabi

litie

s, fr

om h

avin

g ac

adem

ic p

robl

ems.

Lead

ersh

ip

Pers

onne

l D

ecis

ions

and

act

ions

by

scho

ol a

nd

dist

rict l

eade

rs u

nder

min

e th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f the

ess

entia

l co

mpo

nent

s of t

he R

TI fr

amew

ork

at

the

scho

ol.

Dec

isio

ns a

nd a

ctio

ns b

y sc

hool

and

di

stric

t lea

ders

are

inco

nsis

tent

and

onl

y so

mew

hat s

uppo

rtive

of t

he e

ssen

tial

com

pone

nts o

f the

RTI

fram

ewor

k at

th

e sc

hool

; sup

port

for R

TI

impl

emen

tatio

n is

not

ver

y ev

iden

t.

Dec

isio

ns a

nd a

ctio

ns b

y sc

hool

and

di

stric

t lea

ders

pro

activ

ely

supp

ort t

he

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f the

RTI

fr

amew

ork

at th

e sc

hool

, and

hel

p m

ake

the

RTI f

ram

ewor

k m

ore

effe

ctiv

e;

supp

ort f

or R

TI im

plem

enta

tion

is a

hi

gh p

riorit

y.

Scho

ol-B

ased

Pr

ofes

siona

l D

evel

opm

ent

The

scho

ol h

as n

o w

ell-d

efin

ed, s

choo

l-ba

sed

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t m

echa

nism

to su

ppor

t con

tinuo

us

impr

ovem

ent o

f ins

truct

iona

l pra

ctic

e,

data

-bas

ed d

ecis

ion

mak

ing,

and

de

liver

y of

inte

rven

tions

.

Som

e fo

rms o

f sch

ool-b

ased

pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent a

re a

vaila

ble,

bu

t mos

t are

not

con

sist

ent o

r job

em

bedd

ed to

ens

ure

cont

inuo

us

impr

ovem

ent i

n in

stru

ctio

nal p

ract

ice,

da

ta-b

ased

dec

isio

n m

akin

g, a

nd

deliv

ery

of in

terv

entio

ns.

Scho

ol-b

ased

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t is

inst

itutio

naliz

ed a

nd st

ruct

ured

so th

at

all t

each

ers c

ontin

uous

ly e

xam

ine,

re

flect

upo

n, a

nd im

prov

e in

stru

ctio

nal

prac

tice,

dat

a-ba

sed

deci

sion

mak

ing,

an

d de

liver

y of

inte

rven

tions

.

Sche

dule

s Sc

hool

wid

e sc

hedu

les a

re n

ot a

ligne

d to

supp

ort m

ultip

le le

vels

of

inte

rven

tion

base

d on

stud

ent n

eed;

in

adeq

uate

tim

e is

ava

ilabl

e fo

r in

terv

entio

ns.

Scho

ol w

ide

sche

dule

s are

par

tially

al

igne

d to

supp

ort m

ultip

le le

vels

of

inte

rven

tion

base

d on

stud

ent n

eed;

so

me

addi

tiona

l tim

e is

bui

lt in

for

inte

rven

tions

.

Scho

ol w

ide

sche

dule

s are

alig

ned

to

supp

ort m

ultip

le le

vels

of i

nter

vent

ion

base

d on

stud

ent n

eed;

ade

quat

e ad

ditio

nal t

ime

is b

uilt

in fo

r in

terv

entio

ns.

Res

ourc

es

Res

ourc

es (e

.g.,

fund

s, pr

ogra

ms)

are

no

t allo

cate

d to

supp

ort R

TI

impl

emen

tatio

n.

Res

ourc

es (e

.g.,

fund

s, pr

ogra

ms)

are

pa

rtial

ly a

lloca

ted

to su

ppor

t RTI

im

plem

enta

tion.

Res

ourc

es (e

.g.,

fund

s, pr

ogra

ms)

are

ad

equa

tely

allo

cate

d to

supp

ort R

TI

impl

emen

tatio

n.

Cul

tura

l and

Li

ngui

stic

R

espo

nsiv

enes

s

One

or n

one

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: St

aff c

an a

rticu

late

info

rmat

ion

and

fact

ors t

hat t

hey

cons

ider

whe

n ad

optin

g

Two

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

m

et:

Staf

f can

arti

cula

te in

form

atio

n an

d fa

ctor

s tha

t the

y co

nsid

er w

hen

adop

ting

All

thre

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: St

aff c

an a

rticu

late

info

rmat

ion

and

fact

ors t

hat t

hey

cons

ider

whe

n ad

optin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

8

cultu

rally

and

ling

uist

ical

ly re

leva

nt

(1) i

nstru

ctio

nal p

ract

ices

, (2

) ass

essm

ents

, and

(3) i

nter

vent

ion

prog

ram

s.

cultu

rally

and

ling

uist

ical

ly re

leva

nt

(1) i

nstru

ctio

nal p

ract

ices

, (2

) ass

essm

ents

, and

(3) i

nter

vent

ion

prog

ram

s.

cultu

rally

and

ling

uist

ical

ly re

leva

nt

(1) i

nstru

ctio

nal p

ract

ices

, (2

) ass

essm

ents

, and

(3) i

nter

vent

ion

prog

ram

s.

Com

mun

icatio

ns

With

and

In

volv

emen

t of

Pare

nts

One

or n

one

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

a descriptio

n of th

e scho

ol’s

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f RTI

is sh

ared

w

ith p

aren

ts; (

2) a

coh

eren

t mec

hani

sm

is im

plem

ente

d fo

r upd

atin

g pa

rent

s on

the

prog

ress

of t

heir

child

who

is

rece

ivin

g se

cond

ary

or in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tions

; and

(3) p

aren

ts a

re

invo

lved

dur

ing

deci

sion

mak

ing

rega

rdin

g th

e pr

ogre

ss o

f stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n.

Two

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

m

et: (

1) a

descriptio

n of th

e scho

ol’s

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f RTI

is sh

ared

w

ith p

aren

ts; (

2) a

coh

eren

t mec

hani

sm

is im

plem

ente

d fo

r upd

atin

g pa

rent

s on

the

prog

ress

of t

heir

child

who

is

rece

ivin

g se

cond

ary

or in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tions

; and

(3) p

aren

ts a

re

invo

lved

dur

ing

deci

sion

mak

ing

rega

rdin

g th

e pr

ogre

ss o

f stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n.

All

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) a descriptio

n of th

e scho

ol’s

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f RTI

is sh

ared

w

ith p

aren

ts; (

2) a

coh

eren

t mec

hani

sm

is im

plem

ente

d fo

r upd

atin

g pa

rent

s on

the

prog

ress

of t

heir

child

who

is

rece

ivin

g se

cond

ary

or in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tions

; and

(3) p

aren

ts a

re

info

rmed

abo

ut d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

rega

rdin

g th

e pr

ogre

ss o

f stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n.

Com

mun

icat

ion

With

and

In

volv

emen

t of

All

Staf

f

One

or n

one

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

a descriptio

n of th

e scho

ol’s

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f RTI

and

dat

a-ba

sed

deci

sion

- mak

ing

proc

ess i

s sh

ared

with

staf

f; (2

) a sy

stem

is in

pl

ace

to k

eep

staf

f inf

orm

ed; a

nd

(3) t

each

er te

ams c

olla

bora

te fr

eque

ntly

.

At l

east

two

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s ar

e m

et: (

1) a

descriptio

n of th

e scho

ol’s

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f RTI

and

dat

a-ba

sed

deci

sion

-mak

ing

proc

ess i

s sha

red

with

staf

f; (2

) a sy

stem

is in

pla

ce to

ke

ep st

aff i

nfor

med

; and

(3) t

each

er

team

s col

labo

rate

freq

uent

ly.

All

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) a descriptio

n of th

e scho

ol’s

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts o

f RTI

and

dat

a-ba

sed

deci

sion

- mak

ing

proc

ess i

s sh

ared

with

staf

f; (2

) a sy

stem

is in

pl

ace

to k

eep

staf

f inf

orm

ed; a

nd

(3) t

each

er te

ams c

olla

bora

te fr

eque

ntly

. R

TI T

eam

s

Onl

y on

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons i

s m

et: (

1) th

e RT

I tea

m is

repr

esen

tativ

e of

all

key

stak

ehol

ders

; (2)

stru

ctur

es

and

clea

r pro

cess

es a

re in

pla

ce to

gui

de

deci

sion

mak

ing;

and

(3) t

ime

is se

t as

ide

for t

he te

am to

mee

t reg

ular

ly.

At l

east

two

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s ar

e m

et: (

1) th

e R

TI te

am is

re

pres

enta

tive

of a

ll ke

y st

akeh

olde

rs;

(2) s

truct

ures

and

cle

ar p

roce

sses

are

in

plac

e to

gui

de d

ecis

ion

mak

ing;

and

(3

) tim

e is

set a

side

for t

he te

am to

m

eet r

egul

arly

.

All

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) the

RTI

team

is re

pres

enta

tive

of a

ll ke

y st

akeh

olde

rs; (

2) st

ruct

ures

and

cl

ear p

roce

sses

are

in p

lace

to g

uide

de

cisi

on m

akin

g; a

nd (3

) tim

e is

set

asid

e fo

r the

team

to m

eet r

egul

arly

.

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI F

idel

ity o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

Rub

ric—

9

Fide

lity

and

Eval

uatio

n—Sy

stem

for c

olle

ctin

g an

d an

alyz

ing

data

to m

easu

re fi

delit

y an

d ef

fect

iven

ess o

f the

RTI

mod

el.

Mea

sure

s 1

3 5

Fide

lity

Nei

ther

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

pro

cedu

res a

re in

pla

ce to

m

onito

r the

fide

lity

of im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e co

re c

urric

ulum

and

seco

ndar

y an

d in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tions

; and

(2

) pro

cedu

res a

re in

pla

ce to

mon

itor

the

proc

esse

s of a

dmin

iste

ring

and

anal

yzin

g as

sess

men

ts.

One

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is m

et:

(1) p

roce

dure

s are

in p

lace

to m

onito

r th

e fid

elity

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

the

core

cur

ricul

um a

nd se

cond

ary

and

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

ns; a

nd

(2) p

roce

dure

s are

in p

lace

to m

onito

r th

e pr

oces

ses o

f adm

inis

terin

g an

d an

alyz

ing

asse

ssm

ents

.

Bot

h of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

pro

cedu

res a

re in

pla

ce to

m

onito

r the

fide

lity

of im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e co

re c

urric

ulum

and

seco

ndar

y an

d in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tions

; and

(2

) pro

cedu

res a

re in

pla

ce to

mon

itor

the

proc

esse

s of a

dmin

iste

ring

and

anal

yzin

g as

sess

men

ts.

Eval

uatio

n

Non

e of

the

follo

win

g co

nditi

ons a

re

met

: (1)

an

eval

uatio

n pl

an is

in p

lace

to

mon

itor s

hort-

and

long

-term

goa

ls;

(2) s

tude

nt d

ata

are

revi

ewed

for a

ll st

uden

ts a

nd su

bgro

ups o

f stu

dent

s ac

ross

the

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts t

o ev

alua

te e

ffec

tiven

ess o

f the

RTI

fr

amew

ork

(i.e.

, cor

e cu

rric

ulum

is

effe

ctiv

e, in

terv

entio

ns a

re e

ffec

tive,

sc

reen

ing

proc

ess i

s eff

ectiv

e); a

nd

(3) i

mpl

emen

tatio

n da

ta (e

.g.,

wal

k-th

roug

hs) a

re re

view

ed to

mon

itor

fidel

ity a

nd e

ffic

ienc

y ac

ross

all

com

pone

nts o

f the

RTI

fram

ewor

k.

At l

east

one

of t

he fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s is

met

: (1)

an

eval

uatio

n pl

an is

in p

lace

to

mon

itor s

hort-

and

long

-term

goa

ls;

(2) s

tude

nt d

ata

are

revi

ewed

for a

ll st

uden

ts a

nd su

bgro

ups o

f stu

dent

s ac

ross

the

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts t

o ev

alua

te e

ffec

tiven

ess o

f the

RTI

fr

amew

ork

(i.e.

, cor

e cu

rric

ulum

is

effe

ctiv

e, in

terv

entio

ns a

re e

ffec

tive,

sc

reen

ing

proc

ess i

s eff

ectiv

e); a

nd

(3) i

mpl

emen

tatio

n da

ta (e

.g.,

wal

k-th

roug

hs) a

re re

view

ed to

mon

itor

fidel

ity a

nd e

ffic

ienc

y ac

ross

all

com

pone

nts o

f the

RTI

fram

ewor

k.

All

of th

e fo

llow

ing

cond

ition

s are

met

: (1

) an

eval

uatio

n pl

an is

in p

lace

to

mon

itor s

hort-

and

long

-term

goa

ls;

(2) s

tude

nt d

ata

are

revi

ewed

for a

ll st

uden

ts a

nd su

bgro

ups o

f stu

dent

s ac

ross

the

esse

ntia

l com

pone

nts t

o ev

alua

te e

ffec

tiven

ess o

f the

RTI

fr

amew

ork

(i.e.

, cor

e cu

rric

ulum

is

effe

ctiv

e, in

terv

entio

ns a

re e

ffec

tive,

sc

reen

ing

proc

ess i

s eff

ectiv

e); a

nd

(3) i

mpl

emen

tatio

n da

ta (e

.g.,

wal

k-th

roug

hs) a

re re

view

ed to

mon

itor

fidel

ity a

nd e

ffic

ienc

y ac

ross

all

com

pone

nts o

f the

RTI

fram

ewor

k.

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n

RTI

Ess

entia

l Com

pone

nts I

nteg

rity

Wor

kshe

et—

1 C

opyr

ight

© 2

014

Am

eric

an In

stitu

tes f

or R

esea

rch.

All

right

s res

erve

d.

2094

_05/

14

RTI Ess

ential Com

pone

nts Works

heet

Sc

hool

: __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Dis

trict

: ___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ D

ate:

___

____

____

____

_ Pe

rson

(s) I

nter

view

ed:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Inte

rvie

wer

(s):

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Purp

ose:

The

purp

ose

of th

is w

orks

heet

is to

pro

vide

a to

ol fo

r collecting releva

nt in

form

ation an

d for recording

a sc

hool’s ra

ting on

various

item

s rel

ated

to re

spon

se to

inte

rven

tion

(RTI

) im

plem

enta

tion.

Des

crip

tions

of r

atin

gs fo

r eac

h ite

m a

re p

rovi

ded

on th

e R

TI E

ssen

tial

Com

pone

nts I

nteg

rity

Rub

ric (t

he R

ubric

).

Info

rmat

ion

abou

t sch

ool-l

evel

impl

emen

tatio

n (G

rade

s K–8

) may

be

colle

cted

thro

ugh

inte

rvie

ws w

ith sc

hool

per

sonn

el a

nd th

roug

h ob

serv

atio

ns a

nd d

ocum

ent r

evie

w. A

fter a

ll of

the

info

rmat

ion

has b

een

colle

cted

, use

you

r not

es a

nd th

e R

ubric

to ra

te th

e sc

hool

on

each

item

. The

Rub

ric p

rovi

des a

five

-poi

nt ra

ting

scal

e an

d de

scrip

tions

of p

ract

ices

that

wou

ld sc

ore

a 1,

3, o

r 5. D

ata

colle

ctor

s may

as

sign

the

scho

ol a

ratin

g of

2 o

r 4 if

the

info

rmat

ion

colle

cted

sugg

ests

the

scho

ol fa

lls b

etw

een

the

rubr

ic d

escr

iptio

ns. F

or e

xam

ple,

if

the

revi

ewer

judg

es a

scho

ol to

be

perf

orm

ing

at a

leve

l hig

her t

han

the

Rub

ric d

escr

ibes

for a

3 ra

ting

but n

ot q

uite

at t

he le

vel

desc

ribed

for a

5, t

hen

the

revi

ewer

shou

ld ra

te th

e sc

hool

as p

erfo

rmin

g at

a 4

.

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

2

Asse

ssm

ents:

Scr

eeni

ng, p

rogr

ess m

onito

ring,

and

oth

er su

ppor

ting

asse

ssm

ents

are

use

d to

info

rm d

ata-

base

d de

cisio

n m

akin

g.

Item

Sa

mpl

e In

terv

iew

Que

stio

ns

Com

men

ts/R

emar

ks

Rat

ings

Sc

reen

ing—

The

RTI s

yste

m a

ccur

atel

y id

entif

ies s

tude

nts a

t risk

of p

oor l

earn

ing

outc

omes

or c

halle

ngin

g be

havi

ors.

1.

Scre

enin

g To

ols

Wha

t too

ls d

o yo

u us

e fo

r uni

vers

al

scre

enin

g (p

robe

acr

oss c

onte

nt a

reas

)?

How

muc

h at

tent

ion

was

giv

en to

the

vend

or’s e

vide

nce

rega

rdin

g th

e va

lidity

, rel

iabi

lity,

and

acc

urac

y of

the

tool

s whe

n se

lect

ed?

Doe

s you

r sch

ool h

ave

docu

men

tatio

n fr

om th

e ve

ndor

that

thes

e to

ols h

ave

been

show

n to

be

valid

, rel

iabl

e, a

nd

accu

rate

with

subg

roup

s in

your

sc

hool

?

Doe

s sta

ff u

nder

stan

d ho

w th

e to

ol is

in

tend

ed to

be

used

?

Can

you

or o

ther

staf

f pro

vide

evi

denc

e of

the

tech

nica

l ade

quac

y (i.

e.,

relia

bilit

y, v

alid

ity, c

lass

ifica

tion

accu

racy

) of t

he to

ols?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

for r

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

3

2.

Uni

vers

al

Scre

enin

g D

escr

ibe

the

proc

ess f

or c

ondu

ctin

g sc

reen

ing

in y

our s

choo

l. To

wha

t ex

tent

is th

is p

roce

ss c

onsi

sten

tly

follo

wed

?

Are

all

stud

ents

scre

ened

?

How

man

y tim

es d

urin

g th

e sc

hool

ye

ar a

re st

uden

ts sc

reen

ed?

Do

you

use

a w

ell-d

efin

ed c

ut sc

ore

or

deci

sion

poi

nt to

iden

tify

stud

ents

at

risk?

How

do

you

ensu

re th

at a

dmin

istra

tion

of sc

reen

ing

asse

ssm

ents

follo

ws t

he

deve

lope

r’s g

uide

lines

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

3.

Dat

a Po

ints

to

Ver

ify R

isk

Do

you

revi

ew o

ther

info

rmat

ion

to

help

ver

ify th

at th

e re

sults

of t

he in

itial

sc

reen

ing

are

accu

rate

bef

ore

plac

ing

a st

uden

t in

seco

ndar

y-le

vel o

r int

ensi

ve

inte

rven

tion?

If so

, wha

t oth

er ty

pes o

f as

sess

men

t dat

a do

you

use

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

4

Prog

ress

Mon

itorin

g—O

ngoi

ng a

nd fr

eque

nt m

onito

ring

of p

rogr

ess q

uant

ifies

rate

s of i

mpr

ovem

ent a

nd in

form

s ins

truc

tiona

l pra

ctic

e an

d th

e de

velopm

ent o

f ind

ividua

lized

program

s. Mea

sures a

re app

ropriate fo

r the

stud

ent’s

grade

and

/or s

kill level.

Item

Sa

mpl

e In

terv

iew

Que

stio

ns

Com

men

ts/R

emar

ks

Rat

ings

Pr

ogre

ss

Mon

itori

ng T

ools

Wha

t too

ls d

oes y

our s

choo

l use

for

prog

ress

mon

itorin

g (p

robe

acr

oss

cont

ent a

reas

)?

Did

scho

ol o

r dis

trict

staf

f con

side

r the

ev

iden

ce fr

om th

e ve

ndor

rega

rdin

g th

e va

lidity

, rel

iabi

lity,

and

acc

urac

y of

the

prog

ress

mon

itorin

g to

ol(s

) whe

n se

lect

ing

it/th

em?

Doe

s you

r sch

ool h

ave d

ocum

enta

tion

from

the

vend

or th

at th

e too

l(s) h

ave

been

show

n to

be

valid

, rel

iabl

e, an

d ac

cura

te w

ith su

bgro

ups i

n yo

ur sc

hool

?

Can

staf

f arti

cula

te th

e ev

iden

ce

supp

ortin

g th

e rig

or o

f the

tool

(s)?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Prog

ress

M

onito

ring

Pr

oces

s

Des

crib

e th

e pr

oces

s use

d fo

r m

onito

ring

prog

ress

.

How

ofte

n is

the

prog

ress

of s

tude

nts

in se

cond

ary

leve

l int

erve

ntio

ns

mon

itore

d?

How

ofte

n is

the

prog

ress

of s

tude

nts

in in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion

mon

itore

d?

Doe

s mon

itorin

g oc

cur w

ith su

ffic

ient

fr

eque

ncy

to sh

ow a

tren

d in

aca

dem

ic

prog

ress

ove

r tim

e?

How

clo

sely

doe

s adm

inis

tratio

n of

the

prog

ress

mon

itorin

g to

ol(s

) fol

low

the

deve

lope

r’s g

uide

lines

?

To w

hat e

xten

t is t

his p

roce

ss

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

5

cons

iste

ntly

follo

wed

?

Dat

a-Ba

sed

Dec

ision

-Mak

ing—

Dat

a-ba

sed

deci

sion-

mak

ing

proc

esse

s are

use

d to

info

rm in

struc

tion,

mov

emen

t with

in th

e mul

tilev

el

syste

m, a

nd d

isabi

lity

iden

tific

atio

n (in

acc

orda

nce

with

stat

e law

). It

em

Sam

ple

Inte

rvie

w Q

uest

ions

C

omm

ents

/Rem

arks

R

atin

gs

Dec

ision

-Mak

ing

Proc

ess

Des

crib

e ho

w d

ecis

ions

are

mad

e to

m

ove

stud

ents

bet

wee

n tie

rs.

Who

is in

volv

ed in

dec

isio

n m

akin

g?

Wha

t dat

a ar

e us

ed to

info

rm th

ose

deci

sion

s, an

d ho

w a

re th

ey u

sed?

Wha

t crit

eria

and

gui

delin

es a

re u

sed

for m

akin

g de

cisi

ons?

To w

hat e

xten

t are

the

scre

enin

g,

prog

ress

mon

itorin

g, a

nd o

ther

as

sess

men

t dat

a us

ed to

info

rm

inst

ruct

ion

at a

ll tie

rs, i

nclu

ding

the

core

inst

ruct

ion?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Dat

a Sy

stem

Is

ther

e a

syst

em fo

r col

lect

ing

and

orga

nizi

ng st

uden

t aca

dem

ic d

ata,

sc

reen

ing

data

, pro

gres

s mon

itorin

g da

ta, a

nd o

ther

form

s of d

ata?

If so

, pl

ease

des

crib

e.

Is th

e sy

stem

use

d co

nsis

tent

ly a

cros

s sc

hool

staf

f?

Are

inst

ruct

iona

l dec

isio

ns m

ade

abou

t st

uden

ts tr

acke

d in

the

data

syst

em o

r th

roug

h an

othe

r met

hod

(incl

udin

g m

ovem

ent b

etw

een

tiers

)?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

6

Res

pons

iven

ess t

o Se

cond

ary

and

Inte

nsiv

e Lev

els o

f In

terv

entio

n

Des

crib

e ho

w d

ecis

ions

abo

ut

resp

onsi

vene

ss to

seco

ndar

y-le

vel

inte

rven

tions

or i

nten

sive

inte

rven

tion

are

mad

e.

� A

re p

rogr

ess m

onito

ring

data

us

ed?

� H

ow is

bas

elin

e pe

rfor

man

ce

esta

blis

hed?

� W

hat g

oal s

ettin

g m

etho

d is

us

ed?

(e.g

., en

d-of

-yea

r be

nchm

arks

, rat

e of

im

prov

emen

t, in

tra-in

divi

dual

fr

amew

ork?

Are

rate

s or n

orm

s pr

ovid

ed b

y th

e ve

ndor

/dev

elop

er?

� W

hat d

ecis

ion

rule

s are

use

d?

Are

the

crite

ria im

plem

ente

d ac

cura

tely

and

con

sist

ently

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

7

Mul

tilev

el In

struc

tion—

The

RTI f

ram

ewor

k in

clud

es a

scho

ol-w

ide,

mul

tilev

el sy

stem

of i

nstru

ctio

n an

d in

terv

entio

ns fo

r pre

vent

ing

scho

ol fa

ilure

. Com

mon

ly re

pres

ente

d by

the

thre

e-tie

red

trian

gle,

mul

tilev

el in

struc

tion

also

is k

nown

as t

he m

ulti-

tiere

d sy

stem

of s

uppo

rt (M

TSS)

. Item

Sa

mpl

e In

terv

iew

Que

stio

ns

Com

men

ts/R

emar

ks

Rat

ings

Pr

imar

y-Le

vel I

nstru

ctio

n/Co

re C

urric

ulum

(T

ier I

) R

esea

rch-

Base

d C

urri

culu

m

Mat

eria

ls

Des

crib

e pr

imar

y-le

vel i

nstru

ctio

n (c

ore

curr

icul

um) m

ater

ials

.

Wha

t is t

he re

sear

ch b

ase?

Whe

n yo

ur sc

hool

sele

cted

its c

ore

inst

ruct

iona

l mat

eria

ls, h

ow m

uch

atte

ntio

n w

as p

aid

to th

e re

sear

ch b

ase?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Art

icul

atio

n of

Te

achi

ng a

nd

Lear

ning

(in

and

acro

ss g

rade

le

vels)

Des

crib

e th

e pr

oces

s tha

t sup

ports

the

artic

ulat

ion

of te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

from

one

gra

de to

ano

ther

.

Des

crib

e th

e pr

oces

s tha

t sup

ports

the

artic

ulat

ion

of te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

amon

g te

ache

rs in

the

sam

e gr

ade.

How

con

sist

ent i

s the

lear

ning

ex

perie

nce

amon

g st

uden

ts in

the

sam

e gr

ade

and

subj

ect w

ith d

iffer

ent

teac

hers

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

8

Diff

eren

tiate

d In

stru

ctio

n To

wha

t ext

ent d

o te

ache

rs in

this

sc

hool

use

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t dat

a an

d kn

owle

dge

of st

uden

t rea

dine

ss,

lang

uage

, and

cul

ture

to o

ffer

stud

ents

in

the

sam

e cl

ass d

iffer

ent t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

stra

tegi

es to

add

ress

stud

ent

need

s?

How

con

sist

ent i

s thi

s eff

ort a

mon

g th

e te

achi

ng st

aff?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Stan

dard

s-Ba

sed

To w

hat e

xten

t is t

he c

ore

curr

icul

um

in re

adin

g an

d m

athe

mat

ics a

ligne

d to

st

ate

stan

dard

s?

Are

the

inst

ruct

iona

l mat

eria

ls a

ligne

d to

the

stan

dard

s? A

re m

odel

or s

ampl

e le

sson

s and

act

iviti

es th

at d

emon

stra

te

effe

ctiv

e te

achi

ng o

f the

stan

dard

s av

aila

ble

to te

ache

rs?

Hav

e te

ache

rs b

een

train

ed in

the

cont

ent o

f the

stan

dard

s and

in h

ow to

us

e th

at c

onte

nt w

ithin

thei

r les

sons

?

Are

teac

hers

util

izin

g th

eir t

rain

ing

and

alig

ning

thei

r ins

truct

ion

to th

ese

stan

dard

s?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

9

Exce

edin

g Be

nchm

ark

Are

pro

gram

s and

act

iviti

es p

rovi

ded

to e

nric

h or

aug

men

t the

cur

ricul

um fo

r st

uden

ts e

xcee

ding

ben

chm

arks

? If

so,

plea

se d

escr

ibe.

Are

any

of t

hese

pro

gram

s and

ac

tiviti

es a

vaila

ble

abov

e an

d be

yond

th

e co

re in

stru

ctio

n?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Seco

ndar

y-Le

vel I

nter

vent

ion

(Tie

r II)

Ev

iden

ce-B

ased

In

terv

entio

n W

hat p

rogr

am(s

) doe

s you

r sch

ool u

se

for s

econ

dary

-leve

l int

erve

ntio

n?

How

wer

e th

ese

prog

ram

s sel

ecte

d?

Hav

e th

ese

prog

ram

s dem

onst

rate

d ef

ficac

y w

ith th

e ta

rget

pop

ulat

ions

(e

.g.,

has r

esea

rch

show

n th

at th

e in

terv

entio

ns p

ositi

vely

impa

ct st

uden

t ac

hiev

emen

t)?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

10

Com

plem

ents

Cor

e In

stru

ctio

n H

ow d

o in

stru

ctor

s of s

econ

dary

-leve

l in

terv

entio

ns e

nsur

e th

at th

e co

nten

t th

ey a

ddre

ss is

wel

l alig

ned

and

com

plem

ents

the

core

inst

ruct

ion

for

each

stud

ent?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Inst

ruct

iona

l C

hara

cter

istic

s A

re th

e se

cond

ary

leve

l int

erve

ntio

ns

alw

ays l

ed b

y st

aff a

dequ

atel

y tra

ined

to

impl

emen

t the

inte

rven

tions

with

fid

elity

?

If no

t, w

ho p

rovi

des t

he se

cond

ary

leve

l int

erve

ntio

n an

d w

hat i

s the

ir ba

ckgr

ound

?

Are

the

seco

ndar

y in

terv

entio

ns a

lway

s co

nduc

ted

with

smal

l gro

ups o

f st

uden

ts?

Wha

t is t

he m

axim

um g

roup

size

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Add

ition

to

Prim

ary

Are

seco

ndar

y-le

vel i

nter

vent

ions

(i.e

., Ti

er II

) alw

ays i

mpl

emen

ted

as

supp

lem

ents

to th

e co

re c

urric

ulum

?

If no

t, pl

ease

exp

lain

.

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

R

ecom

men

datio

ns

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

11

Inte

nsiv

e In

terv

entio

n—In

divi

dual

ized

with

a fo

cus o

n th

e ac

adem

ic n

eeds

of s

tude

nts w

ith d

isabi

litie

s and

thos

e sig

nific

antly

bel

ow g

rade

leve

l (T

ier I

II)

Dat

a-Ba

sed

Inte

rven

tions

A

dapt

ed B

ased

on

Stud

ent N

eed

How

are

evi

denc

e-ba

sed

inte

rven

tions

in

tens

ified

or i

ndiv

idua

lized

at t

he

inte

nsiv

e le

vel?

How

are

the

inte

rven

tions

use

d at

this

le

vel d

evel

oped

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Inst

ruct

iona

l C

hara

cter

istic

s W

ho p

rovi

des i

nten

sive

inte

rven

tion?

C

an y

ou d

escr

ibe

thei

r bac

kgro

und

and

leve

l of t

rain

ing

in p

rovi

ding

dat

a-ba

sed

indi

vidu

aliz

ed in

stru

ctio

n?

Doe

s the

gro

up si

ze a

llow

for t

he

inte

rven

tioni

st to

adj

ust a

nd

indi

vidu

aliz

e in

stru

ctio

n to

add

ress

the

need

s of e

ach

stud

ent?

Des

crib

e an

exa

mpl

e of

a st

uden

t ex

perie

ncin

g in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion.

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

12

Rel

atio

nshi

p to

Pr

imar

y A

re in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tions

alw

ays

impl

emen

ted

as su

pple

men

ts to

the

core

cur

ricul

um?

If no

t, pl

ease

exp

lain

.

How

do

you

deci

de if

a st

uden

t re

ceiv

ing

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n sh

ould

re

mai

n in

prim

ary-

leve

l ins

truct

ion?

How

do

you

ensu

re m

eani

ngfu

l co

nnec

tions

bet

wee

n in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion

and

the

gene

ral e

duca

tion

curr

icul

um (e

.g.,

the

Com

mon

Cor

e)?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Infr

astru

ctur

e an

d Su

ppor

t Mec

hani

sms—

Know

ledg

e, re

sour

ces,

and

orga

niza

tiona

l stru

ctur

es n

eces

sary

to o

pera

tiona

lize

all

com

pone

nts o

f RTI

in a

uni

fied

syste

m to

mee

t the

esta

blish

ed g

oals.

Item

Sa

mpl

e In

terv

iew

Que

stio

ns

Com

men

ts/R

emar

ks

Rat

ings

Pr

even

tion

Focu

s

To w

hat e

xten

t do

you

belie

ve th

e te

achi

ng st

aff v

iew

s the

pur

pose

of R

TI

as p

rimar

ily to

pre

vent

stud

ents

from

ha

ving

aca

dem

ic a

nd/o

r beh

avio

ral

prob

lem

s?

Wha

t por

tion

of th

e te

achi

ng st

aff v

iew

R

TI a

s prim

arily

a m

eans

for s

peci

al

educ

atio

n id

entif

icat

ion?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

13

Lead

ersh

ip

Pers

onne

l To

wha

t ext

ent a

re th

e sc

hool

and

di

stric

t adm

inis

trato

rs a

war

e of

the

RTI

fram

ewor

k at

you

r sch

ool?

To w

hat e

xten

t do

the

actio

ns ta

ken

and

deci

sion

s mad

e by

dis

trict

ad

min

istra

tors

impr

ove

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of t

he R

TI fr

amew

ork

at

your

scho

ol?

To w

hat e

xten

t do

the

actio

ns ta

ken

and

deci

sion

s mad

e by

scho

ol

adm

inis

trato

rs im

prov

e th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f the

RTI

fram

ewor

k at

yo

ur sc

hool

?

Doe

s you

r sch

ool h

ave

a de

sign

ated

pe

rson

who

ove

rsee

s and

man

ages

RTI

im

plem

enta

tion?

If y

es, w

hat

percen

tage

of tha

t person’s tim

e is

devo

ted

to o

vers

eein

g an

d m

anag

ing

RTI

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Scho

ol-B

ased

Pr

ofes

siona

l D

evel

opm

ent

Has

the

staf

f bee

n tra

ined

on

the

RTI

fram

ewor

k an

d es

sent

ial c

ompo

nent

s?

How

ofte

n is

refr

eshe

r or n

ew tr

aini

ng

prov

ided

?

Is R

TI tr

aini

ng p

rovi

ded

to n

ew

teac

hers

?

Wha

t ong

oing

pro

fess

iona

l de

velo

pmen

t is m

ade

avai

labl

e fo

r th

ose

who

pro

vide

seco

ndar

y-le

vel a

nd

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

14

Sche

dule

s D

oes t

he sc

hedu

le re

flect

add

ition

al

time

beyo

nd th

e co

re fo

r sec

onda

ry-

leve

l and

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n?

Is th

ere

time

sche

dule

d fo

r tea

cher

co

llabo

ratio

n on

inst

ruct

ion

and

inte

rven

tions

?

Are

all

the

perti

nent

teac

hers

and

in

terv

entio

nist

s ava

ilabl

e fo

r the

se

colla

bora

tive

mee

tings

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Res

ourc

es

Are

ther

e ad

equa

te m

ater

ials

, pr

ogra

ms,

and

reso

urce

s allo

cate

d to

su

ppor

t int

erve

ntio

ns, a

sses

smen

ts,

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t, st

affin

g?

Do

the

prog

ram

s and

mat

eria

ls m

atch

th

e ne

eds o

f the

stud

ents

at e

ach

tier?

Is th

ere

a pr

oces

s for

mon

itorin

g th

e us

e of

reso

urce

s?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

15

Cul

tura

l and

Li

ngui

stic

R

espo

nsiv

enes

s

Wha

t eff

orts

hav

e be

en m

ade

to e

nsur

e th

at c

ore

inst

ruct

ion,

seco

ndar

y-le

vel

and

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n, a

nd

asse

ssm

ents

take

into

acc

ount

cul

tura

l an

d lin

guis

tic fa

ctor

s?

How

are

the

dem

ogra

phic

and

ac

adem

ic d

ata

of su

bgro

ups

repr

esen

ted

in y

our s

choo

l use

d to

in

form

the

RTI f

ram

ewor

k?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Com

mun

icat

ions

W

ith a

nd

Invo

lvem

ent o

f Pa

rent

s

Are

par

ents

kno

wle

dgea

ble

abou

t the

R

TI fr

amew

ork

in y

our s

choo

l?

Des

crib

e ho

w y

ou c

omm

unic

ate

with

pa

rent

s abo

ut R

TI a

nd st

uden

t pe

rfor

man

ce.

How

are

par

ents

invo

lved

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

rega

rdin

g th

e pa

rtici

patio

n of

th

eir c

hild

in se

cond

ary-

leve

l or

inte

nsiv

e in

terv

entio

n?

How

are

par

ents

of s

tude

nts a

t the

se

cond

ary

or in

tens

ive

leve

l inf

orm

ed

of th

e pr

ogre

ss o

f the

ir ch

ildre

n?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

16

Com

mun

icat

ion

With

and

In

volv

emen

t of A

ll St

aff

Are

teac

hers

in y

our s

choo

l kn

owle

dgea

ble

abou

t the

RTI

fr

amew

ork?

Des

crib

e ho

w y

ou c

omm

unic

ate

with

teache

rs abo

ut th

e scho

ol’s RTI

plan.

How

are

teac

hers

of s

tude

nts a

t the

se

cond

ary

or in

tens

ive

leve

l inf

orm

ed

of th

eir p

rogr

ess i

n th

e in

terv

entio

n?

Wha

t pro

cess

doe

s you

r sch

ool u

se to

en

sure

teac

her c

olla

bora

tion

in

impl

emen

ting

RTI

?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

RTI

Tea

ms

Doe

s you

r sch

ool h

ave

an R

TI te

am?

If so

: � W

ho c

ompo

ses t

hat t

eam

?

� H

ow o

ften

does

the

team

mee

t?

� A

re th

ere

esta

blis

hed

proc

esse

s an

d pr

otoc

ols t

hat h

elp

the

team

w

ork

effe

ctiv

ely?

Wha

t are

they

?

How

doe

s the

team

com

mun

icat

e an

d co

llabo

rate

with

oth

er st

aff?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Cen

ter o

n R

espo

nse

to In

terv

entio

n R

TI E

ssen

tial C

ompo

nent

s Int

egrit

y W

orks

heet—

17

Fide

lity

and

Eval

uatio

n—Sy

stem

for c

olle

ctin

g an

d an

alyz

ing

data

to m

easu

re fi

delit

y an

d ef

fect

iven

ess o

f the

RTI

mod

el.

Item

Sa

mpl

e In

terv

iew

Que

stio

ns

Com

men

ts/R

emar

ks

Rat

ings

Fi

delit

y A

re p

roce

dure

s in

plac

e to

mon

itor t

he

fidel

ity o

f im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e co

re

curr

icul

um?

Of s

econ

dary

-leve

l and

in

tens

ive

inte

rven

tion?

Of s

cree

ning

, pr

ogre

ss m

onito

ring,

and

the

deci

sion

-m

akin

g pr

oces

s? If

so p

leas

e de

scrib

e.

Who

is in

volv

ed in

mon

itorin

g th

e fid

elity

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n?

Doe

s the

evi

denc

e in

dica

te th

at

inst

ruct

ion,

inte

rven

tions

, ass

essm

ents

, an

d de

cisi

ons a

re im

plem

ente

d w

ith

fidel

ity?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

Eval

uatio

n H

ow is

RTI

eva

luat

ed a

t you

r sch

ool?

� Is

a p

lan

in p

lace

for e

valu

atio

n?

� Is

a p

roce

ss in

pla

ce fo

r re

view

ing

stud

ent-l

evel

dat

a fo

r al

l stu

dent

s and

for s

ubgr

oups

of

stud

ents

?

� Is

a p

roce

ss in

pla

ce to

eva

luat

e im

plem

enta

tion

fidel

ity?

How

are

eva

luat

ion

data

use

d?

� A

re te

ache

rs a

nd in

terv

entio

nist

s in

volv

ed in

giv

ing

and

rece

ivin

g fe

edba

ck o

n th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f th

e pr

ogra

ms a

nd m

ater

ials?

Who

is in

volv

ed in

eva

luat

ing

RTI

im

plem

enta

tion?

Not

es

Evid

ence

Sou

rces

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Rat

ing:

c d

e f

g

Just

ifica

tion

of R

atin

g

resource handout packet - presencelearning · resource handout packet ... information about...

Documents