rti for students with significant disabilities
DESCRIPTION
Presentationf for the Illinois Alliance for Administrators in Special Education January 20th, Springfield ILTRANSCRIPT
RtI for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities:
Effective Literacy Instruction
Stefanie Bauer, S.S.P.
Carrie F. De La Cruz, Ph.D.
IAASE
January 20th, 2011
www.wordle.net
• Background
• Leg 1: Instruction
• Leg 2: Assessment
• Leg 3: Teaming
• Conclusion
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Background
The practice of providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and using learning rate over time and level of performance to make important educational decisions.
Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse,
D.,Reschly, D, Shrag, J.. & Tilly, W.D. (2005). Response to Intervention:
Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National
Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.
In Other Words, RtI is…
A data-based decision making process designed to improve educational and behavioral outcomes for ALL
students.
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
• Not just about books, about communication
• Literacy is how we take in information and how we give information
• Literacy is an important life skill
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Learning to read and write: • Enhances cognitive development • Facilitates fuller participation at school • Increases employment opportunities • Facilitates social relationships • Provides a meaningful and enjoyable leisure
pursuit. • Provides a means to communicate more
effectively • Has a positive impact on self esteem
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
The 3 “Legs” of RtI:
Instruction
Assessment
Teaming
Leg 1: Instruction
1. Best Practices
2. Special Considerations
3. What We’re Doing
4. Lessons Learned
• Think about your district / school / student
• What are you doing for Leg 1: Instruction?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Best Practices in Reading Instruction
• National Reading Panel – 5 Big Ideas
• Direct and explicit instruction
• Core & supplemental research-based programs
• 90 min a day
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Tier 1 Core Instructional Interventions
• All students
• Core Curriculum
• Universal Screening (3/year)
3 Tiers of Reading Support
80%
Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions
• Some students (at-risk)
• Small group interventions plus Core Curriculum
• Progress Monitoring (1/week)
15%
Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• More than 30 min./day of extra reading support
• Progress Monitoring (1/week)
5%
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Special Considerations for Students with Significant Disabilities
1. Many students at the earliest levels of literacy development
2. Little research available about effective reading instruction for this population
3. Core program may only meet the needs of a few students in the classroom
4. Students have very unique and challenging learning profiles
5. Given good instruction, students with significant disabilities can learn to read beyond sight words
Literacy Begins at Birth: Building the Foundation
• Language and vocabulary development
• Shared book experiences
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Whole to Part to Whole
• Develop interest in books and
stories
• Associates pictures with words
• Text carries the meaning
•Speech to text boundaries
•Sound manipulation
skills
• Alphabet
•Letter / sound
correspondence
• Decoding individual words
• Reading connected text
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
Literacy
Book / Print Awareness
Letter Identification
Phonological Awareness
Phonics Sight Words /
Pictures
Vocabulary / Comprehension
Writing
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Four Developmental Stages
Fluent Literacy Learner
Emergent Literacy Learner
Literacy Novice
Literacy Beginner
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Literacy Development Profile Beginner Novice Early to Upper
Emergent Upper Emergent to Fluent
Concepts of Print X
Letter Identification X
Phonological Awareness X
Phonics X
Spelling and Writing X
Symbol / Word Reading X
Vocabulary and Comprehension X
Literacy Instruction for Students with
Moderate to Severe Disabilities
DIY – Do It Yourself Literacy Instruction
Instruction Using Packaged
Comprehensive Program
Combination of DIY and Packaged
Program
What We’re Doing
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
http://www.mayer-johnson.com/products/all-curriculum/
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
Instructional Planning Form (IPF) Instructional Strategies
Skill Teaching Strategy
Materials Arrange-ments
Time Assessment Procedures
Letter
ID
• Explicit instruction in letter names
• Identification of letters in context
• Practice Games
• A to Z Letter flashcards (80% known, 20% unknown) – note order to be taught
•Reading materials in classroom
• Reading A to Z Alphabet Books
•Environmental Print
•Alphabet Bingo, Alphabet Spin Game, Alphabet Egg Puzzles
• 1:1
• Group
• Group
• Morning work time
•Through-out day
•Afternoon reading group
• Literacy Benchmark Assessment – Letter ID Fluency
Phono-logical Aware-
ness
•Explicit instruction in rhyming and blending (compound word, onset-rime, syllable)
•Practice Games
• “Phonological Awareness Training for Reading”
•Rhyming word sorts, initial sound word sorts, Guess Who, Rhyming Bingo, etc.
• 1:1
•Group
• Morning work time
•Afternoon reading group
• Progress in PA curriculum
Lessons Learned:
• Students need BOTH direct and explicit instruction in individual skills AND literacy experiences and a literacy rich environment.
• Remember the written expression aspect of literacy.
• Reading comprehension is strongly tied
to language and vocabulary
development.
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
• Are you thinking about doing something different for Leg 1: Instruction?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Leg 2: Assessment 1. Best Practices
2. Special Considerations
3. What We’re Doing
4. Lessons Learned
• Think about your district / school / student
• What are you doing for Leg 2: Assessment?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Screening / Benchmark
To identify who has needs. To identify how students compare to one another. To measure if groups of students are making progress over time. Occurs two or more times a year for all students.
Diagnostic / Skill Analysis
To determine student skill strengths and weaknesses to support instructional planning. This assessment done as needed.
Progress Monitoring
To determine whether instruction is having an impact on student progress on specific skills. Progress monitoring occurs monthly or weekly.
Outcome / Accountability
To determine if students are meeting expected standards.
Best Practices: Assessment for Different Purposes
• Reliable
• Valid
• Standardized
• Able to be given repeatedly over time
• Sensitive to growth over time
• Simple and time efficient
Best Practices: Characteristics of Progress Monitoring Tools
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
• Students need multiple ways of demonstrating their knowledge
• Accuracy more reflective of student ability than fluency – but less sensitive to small amounts of growth.
• Difficult to stick to standardization
• Students may have gaps in skills
(e.g., comprehension)
Special Considerations for Students with Significant Disabilities
Screening / Benchmark
• Documenting levels of literacy attainment annually on NSSED Literacy Tracking Form
Diagnostic / Skill Analysis
• Collecting a variety of data to determine student skill strengths and weaknesses as needed.
• Resources: Assessments built into curricula, CBM and CBE tools, other classroom materials
Progress Monitoring
• If possible, use weekly / monthly CBM fluency measures
• If necessary, use CBM tools as accuracy measures • Resources: AIMSweb, IGDE’s, RIPM, Intervention
Central
Outcome / Accountability
• NSSED Literacy Tracking Form • IEP Outcomes Study • IAA
What We’re Doing
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM) (www.progressmonitoring.org)
– RIPM Research → Significant Cognitive Disabilities
– Tools available to assess several skill areas
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
Intervention Central www.interventioncentral.com
- CBM Warehouse → Probe Generators
- Can select settings such as upper/lower/both, font, font size, number to appear on page, etc.
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
• AIMSweb (www.aimsweb.com) – Many tools available
• Preschool Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDE’s) (www.ggg.umn.edu) – Preschool level assessments
• Reading Inventories (e.g., Jerry Johns, Eckwall-Shanker)
“Touch the picture that says /m/ /a/ /p/”
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
De La Cruz & Bauer, NASP 2010
Lessons Learned • Traditional universal screening /
benchmarking (all students 3x a year on same measure) does not work.
• Assessment to drive instruction must be done, but may require significant modification
• Progress can be very slow
• Your assessment toolkit must be deep, varied, and flexible
• Ongoing assessments become our re-evaluation information
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
• Are you thinking about doing something different for Leg 2: Assessment?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Leg 3: Teaming
1. Best Practices
2. Special Considerations
3. What We’re Doing
4. Lessons Learned
• Think about your district / school / student
• What are you doing for Leg 3: Teaming?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
1. District Leadership Team
2. School Improvement Team
3. Grade Level Team with Targeted
Supports
4. Individual Problem Solving & Special Ed Decision
Making Team
1. A District-Level RTI Team to Make Things Happen for the District
2. A School Improvement Team to Make Things Happen for the School
3. A Grade-level Team with Support to Make Things Happen for Groups of Students
4. A Problem-Solving Team to Make Things Happen for Individual Students
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Best Practices: Problem Solving Method
Plan Evaluation Did our plan work?
Problem Analysis Why is it happening?
Problem Identification Is there a problem? What is it?
Plan Development What shall we do about it?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Special Considerations
• Students with cognitive disabilities require more intensive teaming and instructional planning efforts
• Plan for their instructional needs within the wider school instruction and teaming efforts to the greatest extent possible
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
ELS School Improvement Team
• Team with representation across all disciplines meets together once per month to discuss program-wide goals and issues
• The program’s RtI-related goals are
developed and evaluated by this
team 1. District Leadership
Team
2. School Improvement Team
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
ELS Individual Problem Solving Teams
• A team consisting of an Administrator, Teacher, School Psychologist, SLP, OT, PT, and Program Nurse meet bi-monthly to discuss classroom and student-specific goals and issues
• Lots of “informal” teaming amongst team members outside of group meeting times
1. District Leadership Team
2. School Improvement Team
3. Grade Level Team with Targeted
Supports
4. Individual Problem Solving & Special Ed
Decision Making Team
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Lessons Learned… • Some consistency in teaming norms, process,
and procedures is necessary to make sure that literacy instruction is a focus of the team’s time and energy
• Support is needed in terms of materials, training, and curriculum coaching is necessary for implementing reading instruction
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Lessons Learned…
• Schedule separate team meetings to review and plan for literacy instruction. Regular team meeting time does not typically allow for in depth problem solving on a student’ literacy progress.
• Teachers want to be held accountable for providing effective literacy instruction • Enlist parent support for carryover
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
• Are you thinking about doing something different for Leg 3: Teaming?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Conclusion
Beginning of the School Year – August / September
• Identify student current skill level using existing resources and additional data when necessary.
• Develop comprehensive instructional plan • Identify progress monitoring strategy (what, when, who).
Relate to IEP goals when appropriate. • Implement instructional plans
• Obtain / Create materials • Put instructional time in schedule • Identify training needs • Periodically review progress on implementation
• Implement progress monitoring plan • Obtain / organize materials • Train Staff when necessary • Create graph / chart for data review
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
Middle of the School Year – October – March
• Regularly update progress monitoring data on chart / graph
• Periodically review data to determine whether students are making adequate progress. Make instructional changes when appropriate. Note changes on instructional plan.
• Periodically check to ensure instructional plans are being carried through with integrity. Are we doing what we said we would do?
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011
End of the School Year – April – June
• Conduct Re-Evaluations • Review existing data • Update of student skill level / skill analysis • Describe current instruction plan • Identify direction of future instruction • Identify opportunities for generalization
• Write New Goals • Identify current level of performance across areas • Identify area for new goal • Work with team to write goal
• Update Literacy Tracking Form • Identify current skill development level • Describe current instructional plan • Include current progress monitoring data
Bauer & De La Cruz, IAASE 2011