MN RtI Center 1 Benchmark Screening: Using Screening Data A module for pre-service and in-service professional development MN RTI Center Author: Lisa H. Stewart, PhD Minnesota State University Moorhead click on RTI Center

MN RtI Center 2 MN RTI Center Training Modules  This module was developed with funding from the MN legislature  It is part of a series of modules available from the MN RTI Center for use in preservice and inservice training:

MN RtI Center 3 Overview  This module is Part 2 of 2 Module 1: Benchmark Screening: What, Why and How  What is screening?  Why screen students?  Criteria for screeners/what tools?  Screening logistics Module 2: Using Benchmark Screening Data

MN RtI Center 4 Adapted from Logan City School District, 2002 Curriculum and Instruction Assessment School Wide Organization & Problem Solving Systems (Teams, Process, etc) Assessment: One of the Key Components in RTI

MN RtI Center 5 Screening Data can be linked to Progress Monitoring  The goal is to have a cohesive system.  If possible, use the same measures for both screening and progress monitoring (e.g, CBM). Screen ALL students 3x per year (F, W, S) Strategic Support and Monitoring Students at Some Risk Intensive Support & Monitoring for Students at Extreme Risk

MN RtI Center 6 Using Screening Data

MN RtI Center 7 Interpreting the Data and Reports  Norm-referenced Target Scores Students at or below a certain percentile on local or national norms are determined to be “at risk” 1. >50%ile = on target %ile = some risk %ile = high risk Can be problematic if a lot of students are having difficulty or if local norm group is very small

MN RtI Center 8 Interpreting the Data and Reports  Criterion-Referenced “Benchmark” or Target Scores Target scores are set based on how well they predict success on another measure  Success on the next screening or success on a high stakes test 1.) Established, Low Risk or “Benchmark”:  80% of the students would achieve subsequent goals 2) Emerging, Some Risk or “Strategic”:  50/50 odds so no clear prediction 3) Deficit, High Risk or “Intensive”:  20% or fewer of the students would meet subsequent goals

MN RtI Center 9 Example: DIBELS Benchmark Goals K-6  Phoneme Segmentation Fluency 35 sounds per minute by Spring of K  Nonsense Word Fluency 50 sounds per minute by Winter Gr 1  Oral Reading Fluency (in grade level material) 40 words per minute by Spring Gr 1 90 words per minute by Spring Gr words per minute by Spring Gr words per minute by Spring Gr words per minute by Spring Gr words per minute by Spring Gr 6

MN RtI Center 10 Targets Tied to High Stakes Test Based on St. Croix River Education District Targets linked to success on Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment – II GradeMeasureTarget 1Nonsense Word FluencyJanuary = 52 letter sounds correct/min 1CBM Grade Level Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Spring = 52 words correct/min 2CBM ORFSpring = 90 words correct/min 3CBM ORFSpring =109 words correct/min 4CBM ORFSpring =127 words correct/min 5CBM ORFSpring =141 words correct/min 6CBM ORFSpring =166 words correct/min

MN RtI Center 11 Screening is Used to: Monitor “gross” progress of all students Evaluate instructional programs Establish school norms Call attention to students having difficulty or at risk of having difficulty

MN RtI Center 12 10th %ile 90th %ile 75th %ile 50th %ile 25th %ile Student is above the 90 %ile and is well above average. Student is above the 90 %ile and is well above average. Target Box and Whisker Charts

MN RtI Center 13 Monitoring “Gross” Progress as a Group & Individually: Gr 2 CBM ORF Fall and Winter Screening Data JimmyMarisol

MN RtI Center DRAFT May 27, Screening Data and Curriculum & Instruction Decisions  Where do students move from Fall to Winter to Spring? Chutes and ladders chart  What do the data look like across years?  Using screening data to drive discussions about allocating resources and shifting curriculum and instruction to respond to student needs

MN RtI Center 15 FallWinter Spring Bobby Woody Edward Truman James Intensive <26 17 students 25% Intensive <26 17 students 25% Intensive 10 students 15% Intensive 10 students 15% Intensive Strategic Isis Johanna A.S. Marie Peggy D Benchmark 45 students % % % Benchmark 45 students % % % Benchmark 47 students % % % Benchmark 47 students % % % Benchmark % % Benchmark % % Strategic =26 6 students 9% Strategic =26 6 students 9% Strategic 10 students 15% Strategic 10 students 15% Target: Total Enrollment: 2nd grade 42 Peggy N Tom T Goal 70% 2 10 Credit: SCRED

MN RtI Center 16 Benchmark “Bonus”! Using Data to Evaluate Instructional Effects Over Time Each color represents a different year (oldest to most recent) (Missing Fall data because ORF not collected Fall Gr. 1)

MN RtI Center 17 Screening Data and Curriculum & Instruction Classroom 1: 19/24 children (79%) are on track 5/24 children (21%) have some risk 0 children (0%) are at risk Classroom 2: 8/23 children (35%) are on track 11/23 children (48%) have some risk 3/23 children (13%) are at risk Should both of these classrooms have the same resources? Same curriculum, instruction and schedule?

MN RtI Center DRAFT May 27, Establishing School Norms  Gives an idea of the range of student skills in your building and how much growth students are making

MN RtI Center 19 Identifying Students in Need of Additional Instruction  Primary Purpose of Screening! Overall, how many “at risk” students do we have who need help? Which students need help? Are there logical “groups” of student needs that can help us focus our efforts?

MN RtI Center 20 How Many Students Need Help? Grade or Class “Histograms” (Spring Gr 1) 38% “Low Risk” (>=40 wrc) 22% “Some Risk” (20-39 wrc) 40% “At-Risk” (0-19 wrc) CBM Reading Correct Words Frequency

MN RtI Center DRAFT May 27, Who Needs Help? Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

MN RtI Center 22 Benchmarking Class Lists!!!! Where the Rubber Hits the Road for Teachers, Teams and Individual Instructional Decision Making….

MN RtI Center 23 Who Needs Help? Class Lists and Forming Instructional Groups Example Fall Gr 1 From DIBELS ® Data System, ©University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning Phonemic AwarenessAlphabetic Principle Credit: R. Kaminski DMG

MN RtI Center 24 Credit: R. Kaminski DMG, Stephanie Stoller, OISM

MN RtI Center 25 Remember: Screening is Just That…  The “Yep, Yep, Yep, …HUH?” Test…. Make sure you THINK about the student and the data.

MN RtI Center 26 Build in Time to USE the Data! Schedule data “retreats” or grade level meeting times immediately after screening so you can look at and USE the data for planning.

MN RtI Center 27 Remember: Screening is just ONE part of a solid RTI assessment system  A core feature of RTI is identifying a measurement system Screen large numbers of students  Identify students in need of additional intervention Monitor students of concern more frequently  1 to 4x per month  Typically weekly Diagnostic testing used to help target interventions as neede

MN RtI Center 28 Decision-Tree for Screening Instructional Decision- Making & Progress Monitoring w/ DIBELS

MN RtI Center 29 Remember: Garbage IN…. Garbage OUT….  Avoid Common Mistakes  Make sure your data are reliable and valid indicators or they won’t be good for nuthin… Training Assessment Integrity checks/refreshers Well chosen tasks/indicators

MN RtI Center 30 Articles available with this module  Kovaleski & Pedersen (2008). Best practices in data-analysis teaming. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best Practices in School Psychology, V, NASP Publications.(p ).  Especially beginning on page 119 & case study on p.123  Kovaleski, Roble, & Agne. The RTI data analysis teaming process. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from RTI Action Network Web site: Based/ar/TeamProcess  Stewart & Silberglitt. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best Practices in School Psychology, V, NASP Publications.(p ).  Gibbons, K (2008). Necessary Assessments in RTI. Retrieved from on 6/26/09 on 6/26/09  NCRLD RTI Manual (2006). Chapter 1: School-wide screening Retrieved from 6/26/09http://

MN RtI Center 31 RTI Related Resources  National Center on RTI   RTI Action Network – links for Assessment and Universal Screening   MN RTI Center  and click on link  National Center on Student Progress Monitoring   Research Institute on Progress Monitoring 

MN RtI Center 32 RTI Related Resources (Cont’d)  National Association of School Psychologists   National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NADSE)   Council of Administrators of Special Education   Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) toolkit and RTI materials  tervention.asp

MN RtI Center 33 Key Sources for Reading Research, Assessment and Intervention…  University of Oregon IDEA (Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement) Big Ideas of Reading Site   Florida Center for Reading Research   Texas Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts   American Federation of Teachers Reading resources (what works 1999 publications)   National Reading Panel 

MN RtI Center 34 Recommended Sites with Multiple Resources  Intervention Central- by Jim Wright (school psych from central NY)  Center on Instruction   St. Croix River Education District 

MN RtI Center 35 Quiz (Cont’d)  1) How can Screening Data be linked to progress monitoring decisions and data?  2) What are the three ways target scores could be determined?  3) Students are generally considered high risk on norm-referenced Target Scores at or below _____ percentile. A.) > 50 B.) C.) D.) 0-14

MN RtI Center 36  4) List at least 2 different ways screening data can be used  5) The primary use of screening data is to _______. A.) identify students in need of additional instruction. B.) develop local norms. C.) send data to the state. D.) none of the above.

MN RtI Center Quiz (cont’d)  6) How can a school encourage the use of screening data once it is collected?

MN RtI Center  Note: The MN RTI Center does not endorse any particular product. Examples used are for instructional purposes only.  Special Thanks: Thank you to Dr. Ann Casey, director of the MN RTI Center, for her leadership Thank you to Aimee Hochstein, Kristen Bouwman, and Nathan Rowe, Minnesota State University Moorhead graduate students, for editing, writing quizzes, and enhancing the quality of these training materials