2012 University of Texas System/ Texas Education Agency

Transcription

1 Welcome to this presentation on using RTI information to develop an IEP. It was developed by the Building RTI Capacity project team from the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas at Austin.

2 The funds the Building RTI Capacity In Texas Schools Project to develop and disseminate resources to facilitate RTI implementation. Our team partners with colleagues in our state regional education service centers and professional organizations to conduct professional development. Our primary objective is to make information about RTI implementation available to educators 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, through our project Web site.

3 To prepare for this presenta.on, you ll need to download a few items: The Collabora.ve Instruc.onal Log, the Collabora.ve Instruc.onal Log for Dean, and the Collabora.ve Instruc.onal Log for Julia. You can download copies by clicking on the hyperlinks on the slide. Collaborative Instructional Log: Dean s CIL: hbp://buildingr..utexas.org/cap/iepgoals/cil_dean.pdf Julia s CIL: hbp://buildingr..utexas.org/cap/iepgoals/cil_julia.pdf

4 In this session we will identify key IDEA concepts related to the use of RTI in identifying students with disabilities. Next we ll link these RTI concepts to IDEA requirements for developing an IEP; and then apply this information. We ll use a scenario to consider data for fictional students, and explore use of a tool designed for teacher communication and student data collection. Finally we will look at their draft IEPs developed for consideration at the Admission, Review and Dismissal, or ARD Committee meeting. We ll practice the IEP development process twice, once for a student who is close to meeting grade level expectations, and once for a student who continues to need special education to close her gaps in learning.

5 It s important to begin with a shared understanding of what Response to Intervention, or RTI, means. To many educators, RTI is an instructional framework that targets at-risk students. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education defines RTI as a framework that prevents learning difficulties by providing high quality instruction and intervention matched to student needs, and using learning rate over time and level of performance to make important educational decisions. As an instructional framework, RTI uses student assessment data to inform instruction and intervention. Screening and benchmark measures identify students with gaps in learning. These at-risk students immediately receive intervention instruction that is designed to close their gaps. Student response to the intervention is measured with frequent progress monitoring. Educators use the progress monitoring data to determine whether the intervention is working, and to make necessary adjustments to increase its effectiveness. Intervention is provided at levels or tiers of increasing intensity matched to student needs. Other terms associated with RTI include 3-Tier Model, multi-tiered intervention model, and Instructional Decision-making Model, or IDM.

6 Now that we ve discussed RTI as an instructional framework that prevents learning difficulties, let s focus on using RTI in the identification of students with specific learning disabilities, or SLDs. In IDEA 2004, RTI is used in the context of the determination of the presence of a specific learning disability. IDEA states that the group of qualified individuals and the parent must consider as part of the evaluation (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel: and (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child s parents. Does this sound familiar? Appropriate instruction documentation of repeated assessments reasonable intervals student progress: All of this data is required for eligibility determination, regardless of the model used for identifying SLD. And again, these concepts are all addressed within an RTI framework.

7 IDEA describes RTI data as including documentation of the student s participation in RTI, including the instructional strategies used and the student data collected.

8 What does student RTI data look like? Let s look at the Collaborative Instructional Log that you downloaded earlier. It is a tool designed to provide one place to document a student s progress in special education intervention instruction. There is also a version of the log for at-risk students. Both document the student s response to intervention instruction over time, and at specified intervals, including the strategies that were taught. The top row shows key student information: reading assessment baseline data, annual goals and criteria to exit intervention, specifics about the core reading instruction, and the intervention summary, including specially designed instruction and instructional settings. Note, this is NOT the same as an IEP. The next row begins the documentation of the student s response to the special education intervention. The far left cell shows the dates of a 2 or 3 week intervention period, time of day when the intervention is provided, and short-term goals.the next cell is for noting the one or two research-based strategies that will be taught during that period. Next, Teacher(s) Responsible lists who is responsible for teaching the strategy (noted by an asterisk), and those who will hold the student accountable for using the strategies Next there is a place for teachers to note what worked with the student, or modifications needed, and then finally, the data from progress monitoring at the end of the period..

9 Last year the teachers at Barbara Jordan Elementary selected the Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills, or DIBELS, as their universal screening instrument. For fourth grade, DIBELS includes a measure for Oral Reading Fluency, or ORF. This measures oral reading fluency by recording the number of words read correctly per minute (wcpm). Notice the number of words correct for the 50%ile, which is the benchmark measure that Barbara Jordan teachers use as an indicator of adequate progress. Note the increases from Beginning of Year (BOY) to Middle of Year (MOY) and End of Year (EOY). Teachers use 118 wcpm or better as the goal for all fourth graders.

10 Let s look at two students in Ms. Herman s fourth grade class, Dean and Julia. Both students are identified as having specific learning disabilities in reading, and have been receiving special education services. It s time for their annual IEP review. Ms. Herman arranges a meeting with Ms. Martinez, the special education teacher, to plan their recommendations for the students IEPs at the Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD) Committee meetings. Both teachers work closely and collaborate to meet their students needs. The two teachers examine Dean s and Julia s beginning of the year (BOY) and middle of the year (MOY) DIBELS assessment data, along with their Collaborative Instructional Logs showing special education intervention progress. Let s start with Dean. How does Dean s middle-of-year (MOY) DIBELS score of 104 compare to the grade level benchmark for reading fluency? He has definitely made progress by averaging a little more than +1 wcpm weekly, but his score is just barely within the some risk category. Prior to the winter break, he actually met the MOY benchmark goals. The MOY data indicate that Dean still may have slight risk and can still benefit from additional fluency intervention. What would your recommendations be for Dean?.

11 Let s examine the intervention Dean received. Take a look at Dean s Collaborative Instructional Log that you downloaded previously. Ms. Herman and Ms. Martinez reviewed his Collaborative Instructional Log and discussed Dean s progress. You can see that he began the year with a Fluency score of 82, that his goal is to be reading with grade level fluency at the end of the year (118), and that he receives 30 minutes of additional small group special education intervention in the resource room 3 days a week, and received it in the regular classroom 2 days a week. Let s look at the notes about the intervention he received. For the first period, the goal was to increase his fluency rate from 82 to 87 wcpm, or by more than two words per week (highly ambitious!). The intervention strategies were to teach him the strategy of re-reading, with a focus on rate. Ms. Martinez notes indicate that she was recording Dean reading aloud weekly, and also noted that his focus on speed was causing him comprehension difficulties. The progress monitoring data at the end of the period shows he improved his rate by 1.5 wcpm, which is great In the next intervention period, the teachers focused on accuracy rather than rate, and worked with him on comprehension and vocabulary. His intervention goal of 89 wcpm indicates that his teachers continue to have high expectations for him. Read the strategies, and the teachers notes. He met his fluency goal of 89.

12 Now take a moment to study Dean s Collaborative Instructional Log. Identify ways the teachers worked together to provide systematic fluency-building instruction to improve Dean s reading fluency.

13 What did Dean s teachers discuss? His middle-of-year (MOY) DIBELS score of 104 shows that he is almost meeting grade level benchmark for reading fluency. He has definitely made progress by averaging a little more than +1 wcpm weekly, but his score puts him barely within the some risk category. Prior to the winter break, he actually met the MOY benchmark goals. The MOY data indicate that Dean still may have slight risk and can still benefit from additional fluency intervention. His Collaborative Log indicates that he has made significant progress and is highly motivated as well. What would your recommendations be for Dean?

14 Both teachers agree that Dean has been making such good progress that he no longer needs the specialized instruction that Ms. Martinez provides in special education. In fact, Dean is reading better than several of Ms. Herman s students who are not receiving special education instruction! If the ARD Committee agrees to exit him from special education, Ms. Herman will add Dean to a Tier II intervention group with fluency building as his target. In that way he will continue to receive intervention support and have his progress regularly monitored. If the ARD Committee determines that Dean continues to meet SLD eligibility, his teachers will suggest IEP goals that will continue focus on meeting grade level reading benchmarks, but exclusively in an inclusion setting. Both teachers think another IEP meeting should be held at the end of the year to determine if he needs special education.

15 You downloaded a copy of Julia s Collaborative Instructional Log earlier. Now let s look at Julia data Julia began the year At Risk, with a Fluency score of 55 wcpm, with 7 errors. Like Dean, her annual reading goal is to reach grade level reading fluency at the end of the year (118). Because of her low fluency rate, her teacher assessed her phonics skills. The Phonics Assessment score was also low, 25 correct out of 50 words. Ms. Martinez provides her with 30 minutes of small group special education intervention in the resource room 5 days a week. Julia struggles to keep up with her peers in Ms. Herman s core reading instruction in the general education classroom. Let s look more closely at the intervention Julia has received this year. For the first period, the goal was to increase her fluency rate from 55 to 57 wcpm, or one word per week. Intervention strategies were to teach the strategy of re-reading, with a focus on rate. Ms. Martinez notes indicate that Julia liked graphing her progress and making flash cards for sight words and content area words.

16 Take a moment to read through Julia s Collaborative Instructional Log.

17 The teachers agreed that while Julia continued to make slow and steady progress, the rate was maintaining her learning gaps, rather than closing them. The teachers knew she needed more intense intervention; more opportunities for immediate teacher feedback to learn, more practice to reach automaticity, and more research-based strategies, and a smaller group. Take a moment to consider solutions to the problem

18 Ms. Martinez wants to move Julia into a more intensive reading intervention, one that would replace her core reading instruction in the general education classroom. At first, Ms. Herman disagreed, stating that Julia was, after all, making progress. But when Ms. Martinez showed Ms. Herman a chart projecting Julia s rate of progress compared with that needed to reach her goal, Ms. Herman understood the need for urgency. Ms. Martinez showed Ms. Herman the intensive replacement core program. They figured out how Ms. Herman could continue to provide content area vocabulary and text for practice work, so Julia could participate more successfully in science and social studies. Julia would continue to build fluency during Reading Buddy time in Ms. Herman s class. Both teachers will continue to use the Collaborative Instructional Log to communicate with other.

19 Ms. Herman and Ms. Martinez decided to use the CIL to discuss Julia s progress with her mother, including the intervention she had received thus far, and show her the progress chart. They wanted her to understand that Julia needed more specialized instruction to accelerate her progress. The teachers decided to show the same information to the ARD Committee, and to recommend a more intensive course of action to better meet Julia s needs: increase Julia s time with Ms. Martinez in the special education resource room for reading instruction to one hour, replace the core reading program with a specially designed intervention program to address her reading deficits, continue close teacher collaboration to reinforce her learning, and provide fluency practice in the general education classroom during Reading Buddies time. Teachers will also closely monitor Julia s progress and share her progress with her and her mother. In addition, the teachers will recommend another IEP review at the end of the year to determine instructional needs for the summer and for next fall.

20 To review, we ve looked at progress monitoring assessment data for two students, along with logs documenting their special education intervention. One student, Dean, made sufficient progress to be recommended for exit from special education services. The other student, Julia, was not making sufficient progress to close her gaps in learning. In her case, the teachers recommended increasing the time in the resource room, as well as a replacement core reading program. In both cases, the ARD Committees had sufficient information to support their decisions. And in both cases, the RTI information enabled teachers to collaborate and to communicate with parents. 20

21 To summarize, we hope these scenarios provided you with an understanding about the relationship of RTI concepts and IEP requirements in IDEA RTI data is a rich source of information for ARD committees as they develop students IEPs. In addition, you examined how two teachers used a collaborative tool to communicate information for their instructional decision making and with the students parents. 21

22 22

23 Thank you for joining our presentation! If you have additional questions, please contact us! 23