From Screening to Verification: The RTI Process at Westside Jolene Johnson, Ed.S. Monica McKevitt, Ed.S.

District Overview 10 elementary buildings, 4 are Title I buildings Focus is on K-2 Approximately 1200 students in K-2

RTI at Westside Focus is on K-2 reading Started 4 years ago with only the Title I buildings, mainly using benchmarking - no systematic intervention Last 2 years all K-2 students were involved in the RTI process

Screening 3 times a year AIMS web measures and portfolio measures All K-2 students Screened by school psychologists, reading specialists and trained graduate students

Kindergarten Phonemic Awareness - Rhyming and Beginning Sounds Portfolio Letter ID AIMSweb Assessments - Letter Naming Fluency - Letter Sound Fluency

1st grade Rigby Running Records 1st 100 Fry Words AIMSweb Measures –Nonsence Word Fluency (NWF) –Oral Reading Fluency (Winter and Spring only)

2nd grade Rigby Running Records 1st and 2nd 100 Fry Words AIMSweb Assessment –Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)

Development of Local Norms Local norms were developed on all measures Random sample was selected (100 students from each grade) Means, standard deviations and percentiles were derived for each assessment

Students in Need of Intervention Team meetings (after each benchmark) –Included the teacher, principal, school psychologist, reading specialist, district reading interventionist and district elementary special education coordinator Criteria to receive services –Below 16th to receive services (K-2) on a preponderance of the measures –Some measures carried more weight than others –The 16th percentile score was chosen as it equals a standard score of 85 which is at the end of the average range.

Interventions Daily 25 minutes for 45 sessions All instruction was delivered by the reading specialist(s) at each building No more than 4 students per group Focus of each session was phonemic awareness, fluency, word work, comprehension Supplemental to daily core curriculum instruction (large group and guided reading instruction)

Progress Monitoring 6 data points over each session Generally on one measure Goal lines were set at the exit criteria (25th or 35th percentiles) Changes to the intervention were made after three consecutive points below the goal line - substantial change form

Validity Checks Completed by the reading specialist midway through each intervention session Principal meets with the reading specialist to determine if changes need to made Observations of the student can be requested Any intervention changes are documented

After Session #1 Benchmark all students Meetings Exit criteria (25th and 35th percentile) New students can enter at this time Interventions can change for students who are not making progress

Session #2 Run in a similar fashion

After session #2 Benchmark all students Early Literacy Meetings are held Students exit, remain in RTI, may be referred for special education Students who have received 2 intervention sessions can be considered for a special education referral

Westside Chart

Referral Process Students are not making sufficient progress Data points remain below the goal line Referral is started at early literacy meetings- these meetings function as the SAT meeting MDT chair completes referral form and obtains parental consent

Graphs

Verification Questions What is the student’s rate of progress compared to peers? What is the student’s level of performance? What are the student’s instructional needs?

Data Collected Analysis of existing data –Running records, classroom information, progress monitoring data Observation of the student Interview with the teacher(s) May Include: -Language, cognitive and other academic testing

Verification Decision LD reading May be another verification if other assessments were completed No special education verification

Outcome Data 21 referrals 13 students verified as LD in reading; this doubled our population of students with learning disabilities in K-2 grades No kindergarten students were referred Most students referred at the end of 2 intervention sessions ended up receiving special education services. Those who did not qualify often had other issues that needed further examination or a different plan of support.

Case Study #1 Student History 2nd grade student who moved in from private school Had received reading intervention in K and 1st grade Identified for reading services after fall benchmark Received 2 sessions of intervention during school year

Case Study #1 continued Referral Decision During spring team meeting, the decision was made to evaluate this student based on level of performance on spring benchmarks as well as rate of progress on graphs. Parent consent obtained to review reading data and to complete assessment in areas of written language and math due to concerns in those areas.

Case Study #1 continued Assessment and Data Rate of progress compared to peers: –Student gained.02 words per week –Typical peers gained 1.7 words per week Current level of performance compared to peers: –Student was below 10th percentile on AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency, Rigby Reading Level, and Fry Word List Instructional needs: –Group of 2 for Guided Reading (Gen Ed) –Additional 25 minutes of instruction with specialist –Significant accommodations in general ed classroom due to reading difficulty

Case Study #1 continued Additional Considerations and Conclusion Additional data was collected due to concerns in written language and math: –Full Scale IQ: 101 –WJ-III standard scores: Broad Math: 96 Broad Written Language: 82 (would not have met 20 point discrepancy) Based on data collected, student was verified LD in reading using RTI data

Case Study #2 Student History 1st grade student Had received reading intervention in K Identified for reading services after fall benchmark Received 2 sessions of intervention during school year

Case Study #2 Referral Decision During spring team meeting, the decision was made to evaluate this student based on level of performance on spring benchmarks as well as rate of progress on graphs. Parent consent obtained to review reading data and to complete assessment in areas of written language and math due to concerns in those areas. The team also wanted to rule out MH so intellectual assessment also considered

Case Study #2 Assessment and Data Rate of progress compared to peers: –Student gained.02 words per week –Typical peers gained 1.7 words per week Current level of performance compared to peers: –Student was below 10th percentile on AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency, Rigby Reading Level, and Fry Word List Instructional needs: –Group of 2 for Guided Reading (Gen Ed) –Additional 25 minutes of instruction with specialist –Significant accommodations in general ed classroom due to reading difficulty

Case Study #2 Additional Considerations and Conclusion Additional data was collected due to concern possible Mental Handicap: –Full Scale IQ: 78 (would not meet criteria for MH or LD Based on data collected, student was verified LD in reading using RTI data

Case Study #3 Student History 1st grade student 2 years of kindergarten Received supplemental reading services both years of kindergarten Received RTI intervention for both sessions in

Case Study #3 Referral and Data Collection Team decided to refer the student due to his lack of growth in reading, his discrepancy from peers and his need for assistance with almost all reading tasks. The only data collected for this evaluation was the reading data, classroom observation and teacher interview.

Case Study #3 Verification Criteria Rate of progress compared to peers: –Student gained -.03 words per week while typical peers gained 1.07 words per week Current level of performance compared to peers: –Student was below the 10th percentile on AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency and below the 16th percentile on the Rigby Running Records Level Instructional needs: –Small group for guided reading in the classroom –Group of 2 for RTI intervention with the reading specialist –Accommodations in classroom for reading, math and writing tasks

Case Study #3 Decision Student had been assessed during his first year in kindergarten and did not qualify. His IQ was in the low average range (SS=85) and language testing was commensurate with his IQ. Based on the data collected in the , the student was verified as LD in reading using RTI data.

Considerations Which norms to use? Substantial change in intervention Progress monitoring “Catch all” category Shift from a black and white decision to more of a gray decision Collaborative MDT decision