Tag: RTI

The Benefits of Determining and Addressing Students Literacy Needs – Early

Students of all economic and cultural backgrounds arrive at institutions of formal education assuming that educators will be able to teach them how to effectively read and write. Some will have the knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, some will have knowledge of how to hold a pencil and write. Some will know how to read. Some will have good oral language skills. Some will have good social emotional skills. Some will show up without any of the previous skills. They will be all put into the same classroom. The teacher is expected to meet the learning needs of all students throughout the day.

There are tools that teachers should have available to ease the “craziness” of having 20-25 students that are all at different levels of learning and social behavior. One tool is universal screening of early or foundational literacy knowledge and skills. Universal screenings are very short probes to determine which students may lack the necessary skills to be successful in their current grade. These screenings usually assist in determining which students may need additional small group or one-on-one instruction to learn foundational learning skills. These screenings also assist in determining students who might need further diagnostic assessment and different instruction for various learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. These short probes are usually used in partnership of teacher observation and completed assignments to increase the validity of the universal screening outcomes.

These probes should begin in kindergarten, and the findings a focus of instruction during Grades K-3. The earlier a student(s) learning needs or lack of knowledge and skills are address the less the student(s) will struggle. Students who receive earlier intervention instruction usually skip the deep emotional scars. Left unmeet these students usually spend their time clawing their way through their day, trying to avoid the shame of not be able to fully participate. Often students just need a few weeks of intense instruction in kindergarten. I have yet to meet a student who didn’t want to function at grade-level with their peers.

The types of probes are dependent on student age and ability. A student in kindergarten should be assessed in phonemic awareness and rapid automatic naming skills. A student in Grade 2 should be assessed in some of the previous probes along with word reading of both regular and pseudonym words. These are usually given three times a year within an instructional response to intervention (RTI) model* that focuses on academics-literacy and math. The probes and intervention instruction begin to separate students with true learning disabilities from those who didn’t gain or learn the foundational skills necessary before entering the formal educational setting. This also ensures that students with true disabilities receive more accurate instruction and assistance earlier than later for their disability.

Students who receive explicit, direct instruction in Grades K-2 for the lacking foundational literacy skills usually “catch-up” to grade level expectation and maintain their intervention gains. Some students will need assistance throughout their formal academic instruction. Students who receive the right academic intervention instruction will avoid many latter social emotional issues. The cost to society and formal education escalates, as students maturate and cannot effectively participate at their grade-level. The earlier students’ lack of foundational skills is addressed; the less funding is needed to bring up them up to grade-level. Students’ brains are more malleable during their younger years.

* Each RTI model should be different, but similar in nature to reflect the students’ academic learning needs and the resources available. All RTI models will have tiers or levels of instruction. Most RTI models in Grades K-4 focus on developing reading skills. Some RTI models may focus on behavior. Behavior focused RTI models may assist in determining the learning levels of students, as behavior often signals a lack of academic skills necessary to function at grade-level. Once the academic needs are meet the behavior issues usually melt away.

In my next blog, I will describe the necessary components and teacher education of a successful RTI program.

References

Moll, K., Georgii, B. J., Tunder, R., & Schulte-Kӧrne (2022). Economic evaluation of dyslexia intervention. Dyslexia, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1728

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826

The Essential Educators of an Effective Response to Intervention (RTI) Model

RTI is an instructional model used to better ensure that all students learn how to read and write. An effective model will reach 80% of learners at the first level of instruction. Tier 1 instruction should include differentiation and scaffolding to reach students on the cusp of not ingesting and owning the necessary skills for knowing how to effectively read and write. Tier 2 instruction is for students not able to grasp the instruction in Tier 1 and should include more precise explicit, systematic instruction. This instruction is usually received in a small group environment with other students needing similar instruction. Tier 3 and above levels of instruction should be assessed, direct, and strategic instruction that has the potential of meeting the needs of each student at these levels. Students receiving Tier 3 instruction often have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). These students usually receive one-on-one instruction and are often part of special education classes. Some of these students receive part of their instruction in a regular classroom, as well as individualized instruction outside of the classroom. Each model will be different to meet the needs of students present. Each model usually includes different essential educators that make the gears of the model work effectively. Individual schools often use “more user-friendly names” for their RTI model that better fit the community its serving.

Individual schools in partnership with the district leaders develop school instructional leadership teams for effective implementation and sustainment of a RTI model. The district should provide the knowledge of the framework for a RTI program and be available to provide support and direction to the school leadership team. School-level leadership teams might include the (a) principal, (b) school psychologist, (c) educational diagnostician, (d) reading specialist, (e) special education teacher, (f) general education teacher, (g) occupational therapist, (h) literacy coach, and (i) the school counselor (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Ryan, Kaffenberger, & Carroll, 2011; Tyre et al., 2012). School leadership teams are responsible for analyzing data, student placement, and instruction (Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009a; Nellis, 2012; Tyre, Feuerborn, & Beisse, 2012). The roles of the leadership members should reflect the needs of present students.

School administrators or principals are key to effective implementation of the RTI model (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b; Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; White, Polly, & Audette, 2012). Administrators are responsible for setting the direction and culture of the school and professionally developing individuals at the school-level, in relation to implementing RTI with fidelity (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). These individuals should possess both interpersonal and communication skills to effectively lead or participate in conversations that provide both critical and positive feedback about the RTI process (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). This feedback should be given with (a) respect and should take note of their input, (b) provide data to support the feedback, and (c) focus on student learning and outcomes. Administrators are also responsible for developing “risk free zones” to encourage open collaboration. They should focus on empowering educators to effectively provide instruction to meet the needs of all students (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima et al., 2009b). Administrators are also responsible for “establishing an infrastructure for school-wide student screening” and “ensure that student data is properly managed” (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). These individuals should “conduct routine classroom walk-throughs, observations, and discussions to provide feedback and ensure reliability” of the RTI program (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). Administrators are usually the backbone of the RTI model.

More about other possible leadership team members in my next post.

References

Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012). Response to intervention and the changing            roles of schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491-501.                 http://doi/10.1002/TRTR.01073

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of                 RTI: A closer look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural                      responsivity. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11.

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of                 RTI: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum assessment and              progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for                       Evaluation & Education, 1-12.

Nellis, L. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in                          response to intervention implementation.  Psychology in the Schools.                 49(3), 245-256.

Ryan, T., Kaffenberger, C., & Carroll, A. (2011). Response to intervention:                An  opportunity for school counselor leadership. Professional School                    Counseling, 14(3), 211-221.

Tyre, A., Feuerborn, L., Beisse, K., & McCready, C. (2012). Creating                              readiness for response to intervention:  An evaluation of readiness                    assessment tools. Contemporary School Psychology, 16, 103-114.

White, R., Polly, D,. & Audette, R. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary              school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of                            Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90.                                                                      http://doi/10.1080/02568543.2011.63206

 

 

 

Evaluating Assessment—Why Are We Assessing?

Education will resemble a new normal, when we begin a new school year in the fall.  This may be a good time to take a deep breath and evaluate how we assess students and use the gathered data. What are the current assessments at the school, district, state, and national levels? Can we combined some of those assessments to serve for multiple items? Can the data from some items be used for other items, but read differently? Does the time spent testing vs the number of hours spent learning make sense? Are we using the data gained from this assessment? There is a high possibility that more students may need extra time to learn and practice new skills this upcoming year. Students’ achievement rates will (mostly) remain a mystery until students return to in-class instruction. Some students may have thrived in their “new” learning environment and be on grade-level. Some students may be a grade or more below the grade-level standard. Some students might have struggled no matter the format or crazy interruptions. Many will need the instruction and practice time to catch-up.

One measurement that should remain is universal screening* of elementary school students (Grades K-8) for grade-level achievement. This battery of short probes gives a good first look at student achievement levels and may be used to progress monitor students as they move through the school year. The probes should be based on grade-level** benchmarks, such as Grade K, phonological awareness and letter-sound correspondences and Grade 1, phonological awareness, sound-letter correspondences, oral reading, etc. Universal screenings also provide a first look at students who may be need instructional supports or deeper assessing. Response to Intervention (RTI) tiers can be developed using universal screening data. Curriculum based assessments and observations can be used to increase the validity of universal screenings and to find students testing false-positive.

Students may test false-positive, meaning the student failed to show his true achievement level on test day—usually very few students. Some students will assess positive for signs of reading disabilities, but not have a reading disability. This may be due to: (a) lack of instruction, (b) lack of practice, (c) another illness-cold, (d) bad test taker, and or (e) their pet died. These students will become apparent as a false-positive during future instruction and observations and or through data of past assessments and observations. A short follow-up assessment may also resolve the false-positive score. Treat each student that tests positive for low-academic achievement and learning disabilities, as if they were until you determine the false-positive. Treating them as a positive for a short amount of time, one to four weeks, is better than ignoring the possibility. Student self-esteem is at stake. Some students will test at the borderline or right above the cut score and should be placed in a “watch” and observe mode to monitor their progression of grade-level instruction. Some students may have parental support to assist in working with them. Some students may have classmate or friend that can help them.

Kindergarteners usually arrive at all different levels. Some will need small group instruction, while others will need more intense instruction to bring them up to grade-level achievement. Students should leave Kindergarten with good foundational skills for learning how to read and write. Every kindergarten student should be able to write a sentence, know their letters-sound correspondences and be able to read a simple sentence before moving on to Grade 1. Many will be able to read short stories and write fluid sentences. Students not at grade-level will likely be in a catch-up mode throughout their academic career.

*Universal Screening: A series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is usually administered school or district-wide three times a year. The screening should identify 90% of the students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs.

**Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline (Ray, J., 2017).

 

Reading Skill

 Column A

Gersten et al., 2009

 Column B

Kashima et al., 2009

 Column C

Lam & McMaster, 2014

 Column D

NJCLD, 2011
Letter naming & fluency  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

 
Phoneme segmentation Grade K-1 Grade K-1    
Phonemic awareness

Nonsense fluency

  

Grade 1

   Grade K-3  
Word identification Grade 1-2   Grade K-3  
Oral reading fluency Grade 1-2 Grade 1 Grade K-3 Grade K-3
Sound repetition   Grade K-1    
Vocabulary   Grade 1    
Reading comprehension   Grade 2-3   Grade K-3
Listening comprehension   Grade 2-3   Grade K-3
Written expression       Grade K-3
Basic reading skills       Grade K-3
Oral expression       Grade K-3

References

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as as-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).  Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

Structured Literacy Supports All Learners-Dyslexic, ESL

Structured Literacy Supports All Learners:  Students At-Risk of Literacy Acquisition—Dyslexia and English Learners

Abstract

Learning to read is a complex endeavor that requires developing brain connections. The brain connections for reading written words begins forming during the development of oral language. The maturing of oral language and reading instruction continue the growth of the necessary brain connections to read and write. Structured Literacy instruction helps to develop and strengthen brain connections for reading and processing written language. Structured Literacy encourages educators to teach the essential literacy foundational skills during the pre and primary school years, so students have a better chance of achieving and maintaining proficiency in literacy. 

This article was published in the Texas Association for Literacy Instruction Yearbook, Volume 7, September 2020, Chapter 5, p. 37-43, downloadable at  http://www.texasreaders.org/yearbooks.html.

Universal Screening

In my last post I defined universal screening as:  a series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used determine student learning level.  The data from universal screening is used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition and for student placement in the response to intervention model.  Universal screening is usually given three times a year.  This screening should identify 90% of the students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition.  Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs.

Universal screening is a vital component of the response to intervention (RTI) model. Screening students with the right assessment probes at the right time is essential to an effective RTI model.  Students should be assessed for proficiency of their current grade level.  Students not showing grade level proficiency should be placed in tiers or groups of focused instruction to improve their literacy skills.  The groups may look different in each classroom or school depending on the current learning needs of present students.  Students should be monitored to ensure that current placement is effective for them.

The following is a timeline for the types of universal screeners that should be used to determine students who are at-risk for literacy acquisition.  This table was developed while I was conducting research for chapter 2 of my dissertation.

Table 1

Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline

 

Reading Skill

 Column A

Gersten et al., 2009

 Column B

Kashima et al., 2009

 Column C

Lam & McMaster, 2014

 Column D

NJCLD, 2011
 

Letter naming & fluency

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

 
Phoneme segmentation Grade K-1 Grade K-1
Phonemic awareness

Nonsense fluency

  

Grade 1

 Grade K-3
Word identification Grade 1-2 Grade K-3
Oral reading fluency Grade 1-2 Grade 1 Grade K-3 Grade K-3
Sound repetition Grade K-1
Vocabulary Grade 1
Reading comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Listening comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Written expression Grade K-3
Basic reading skills Grade K-3
Oral expression Grade K-3

 Note: Column A was adapted from “Assisting Students Struggling with Reading:  Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades” by R. Gersten et al., 2008, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2009-4045, p. 13. Column B was adapted from “The Core Components of RTI: A Closer Look at Evidence-Based Core Curriculum, Assessment and Progress Monitoring, and Data-Based Decision Making by Y. Kashima, B. Schleich, and T. Spradlin, 2009, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, p. 6.  Column C was adapted from “A 10-Year Update of Predictors of Responsiveness to Early Literacy Intervention” by E. A. Lam and K. L. McMaster, 2014, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 37(3), p. 143.  Column D was adapted from “Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students with Learning Disabilities” by The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2011, Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 3-16. 

Other references

Gilbert, J., Compton, D., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. NIH Public Access, Author Manuscript. Retrieved from  http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903290 doi:10.1177/1534508412451491

Kilgus, S. P., Methe, S. A., Maggin, D. M., & Tomasula, J. L.(2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (r-cbm): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 377-405. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.002.

Ray, J.S. (2017). Tier 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading.  (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

What is Response to Intervention?

Response to Intervention (RTI) is often misunderstood as a special education component of education, when RTI is a regular education component used to eliminate the need of special education services.   RTI is also known as Multi-Tiered System of Support.  The RTI model is a system within a system.  The RTI model usually functions within a school, but can function just within a grade level or a classroom.  Each design of the RTI model should match the learning needs of current students.  The necessary components of the model may change from year to year to meet the changing needs of students.  A healthy RTI model will reach most struggling students, freeing-up special education services for students who have the most severe learning needs.

Several definitions of the RTI model exist; a typical RTI model has three tiers of instruction:

  • Tier 1 instruction is taught using research-based curriculum and instruction that is differentiated to meet student learning needs. Tier 1 takes place in the general classroom, taught by a regular classroom teacher.  Tier 1 should meet the learning needs of 80% of the students.  Students who are struggling to meet the expectations of Tier 1 are referred for Tier 2 instruction, using universal screeners and classroom data.  Students can skip tiers to better match individual learning needs.
  • Tier 2 instruction becomes more intense using explicit systematic instruction based on student learning needs. Tier 2 instructions can be taught by regular classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, reading specialist or special education teachers.  Tier 2 instructions typically take place outside of the regular classroom, in a small group setting.  Students are progress monitored, usually once a week to ensure that the curriculum and the intensity of instruction are meeting student learning needs.  Data from monitoring is used to adjust curriculum and instruction.  Students not showing progress after a specified time at Tier 2 are referred for Tier 3 instruction.
  • Tier 3 instruction becomes more intense and individualized. Some students may need more diagnostic testing to better pinpoint their particular learning needs.  Tier 3 is usually taught in one-on-one settings by a paraprofessional, reading specialist or special education teacher.  Tier 3 in some models is special education.

Each tier of the RTI model typically has a team of educators that support the instruction and movement of students in and out of that tier.  Team members usually include the regular classroom teacher, reading specialist, special education teacher, and or the RTI liaison.  Team members can also include administrators, parents, community liaisons, and other educational professionals, such as speech pathologist or psychologist.

Reference:

Ray, J.S. (2017). Tier 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading.  (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

 

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter