Example: marketing

Section 5 School Examples, Student Case Studies, …

Section 5 School Examples, Student case studies , and Research Examples School Examples, page School -Wide Screening, page Progress Monitoring, page Tiered Service Delivery, page Data-Based Decision Making, page Parent Involvement, page Resources, page Student case studies , page Bryanna, page Jayden, page Lauren, page Michael, page Resources, page Research Study Examples, page National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, page Centers for Implementing K-3 Behavior and Reading Intervention Models, page Resources, page is a joint project of researchers at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas. This document was produced under Department of Education Grant No. H324U010004. Renee Bradley served as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be 2006 OverviewIn November 2002, the United States Department of Education requested that the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) identify, describe, and evaluate the implementation of responsiveness to intervention (RTI) in elementary schools throughout the United States.

Section 5 School Examples, Student Case Studies, and Research Examples • School Examples, page 5.3 – School-Wide Screening, page 5.4 – Progress Monitoring, page

Tags:

  School, Students, Studies, Example, School examples, Student case studies, Case

Information

Domain:

Source:

Link to this page:

Please notify us if you found a problem with this document:

Other abuse

Transcription of Section 5 School Examples, Student Case Studies, …

1 Section 5 School Examples, Student case studies , and Research Examples School Examples, page School -Wide Screening, page Progress Monitoring, page Tiered Service Delivery, page Data-Based Decision Making, page Parent Involvement, page Resources, page Student case studies , page Bryanna, page Jayden, page Lauren, page Michael, page Resources, page Research Study Examples, page National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, page Centers for Implementing K-3 Behavior and Reading Intervention Models, page Resources, page is a joint project of researchers at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas. This document was produced under Department of Education Grant No. H324U010004. Renee Bradley served as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be 2006 OverviewIn November 2002, the United States Department of Education requested that the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) identify, describe, and evaluate the implementation of responsiveness to intervention (RTI) in elementary schools throughout the United States.

2 The NRCLD staff worked with the six Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) to identify potential sites and solicit School participation. More than 60 schools across the country initially were considered, and information from 41 of those schools was submit-ted. The NRCLD research staff reviewed the extensive amount of information submitted and judged that 19 of those schools were engaging in one or more commendable RTI practices based on a review of the following six components of an RTI service-delivery model: School -wide screening. Screening is a type of assessment characterized by quick, low cost, repeatable testing of critical academic skills or behaviors and can be administered by individuals with minimal amounts of training. A screening measures whether a Student should be judged at risk. If a Student meets the criteria for at-risk status, he or she is considered for more in-depth assessment.

3 Screenings can use either a criterion referenced or normative comparison standard for measuring Student performance. Progress monitoring. Progress monitoring is a set of assessment procedures for determining the extent to which a Student or students are benefiting from classroom instruction. When applied with rigor, progress monitoring ad-dresses the federal stipulations that students deemed as having a disability have not benefited from general education instruction. Tiered service delivery. The public health profession long ago adopted a tiered approach to services. This approach can be used to explain RTI tiered service delivery of increasingly intense interventions directed at more spe-cific deficits while targeting smaller segments of the population. In the pub-lic health example , the general population receives wellness information about how to stay healthy and receives broad vaccinations.

4 That is consid-ered the first or primary tier of intervention. However, some members of the general population might become ill or, as a result of large-scale screening, might need more specialized treatment. They could be judged as at risk for particular complications. This higher level is considered the secondary level of intervention, which is not provided to the general population but instead is provided for this smaller segment, maybe 10 to 15 percent of the general RTI National Research Center on Learning Disabilities August 2006population. Within this smaller segment, some individuals, roughly 5 percent of the total popu-lation, are going to need very specialized inter-ventions. This highest level is called the tertiary level of intervention and by design is the most intense and most costly level of intervention. In the same way we understand that the general population benefits from receiving an optimal health intervention, we can imagine that all students would benefit from closely matching instructional and curricular approaches to their current level of functioning and need.

5 That is the role of tiered service delivery. Data-based decision making. Accurate imple-mentation requires a shared understanding of options ( , choices of interventions) and the basis on which those intervention decisions are made. By having a public, objective, and norma-tive framework of at risk, responsiveness, and unresponsiveness, School staff will have a basis for guiding their decisions. For example , when School staff and parents understand the expected oral reading fluency growth rates, de-cisions about a Student s responsiveness can be judged more accurately. Parent involvement. Parent involvement is con-sistent, organized, and meaningful two-way communication between School staff and par-ents with regard to Student progress and related School activities. This communication allows parents to play an important role in their child s education. Fidelity of implementation.

6 Fidelity of imple-mentation is the delivery of content and in-structional strategies in the way in which they were intended to be delivered. The delivery of instruction must be accurate and consistent. Al-though interventions are aimed at students , fi-delity measures are focused on the individuals who provide the Section of the RTI Manual profiles informa-tion from some of the schools that engage in com-mendable RTI practices. Part One features schools that have implemented one or more of the RTI com-ponents. Part Two describes longitudinal data from individual students who have received services un-der an RTI delivery model. Part Three describes re-search studies that have employed RTI models. Section 5: School Examples, Student case studies , & Research ExamplesNational Research Center on Learning Disabilities August 2006 OneSchool ExamplesBackgroundIn this Section , we provide School -based exam-ples of five of the six components that are important to the implementation of an RTI service-delivery model.

7 For each of these five components ( School -wide screening, progress monitoring, tiered service delivery, data-based decision making, and parent in-volvement), we describe one or more schools that use an RTI service-delivery model and each School s implementation process for the specific component under discussion. The NRCLD staff is particularly grateful and acknowledges the tremendous efforts that numerous School staffs expended in helping prepare these sec-tions on School site examples and individual Student descriptions. Their efforts allowed us this opportu-nity to become informed by their pioneering spirit and achievements. As you read these descriptions, please keep the following points in mind: Our intent is to describe examples of RTI im-plementation as illustrative of current practices. These are real-world examples and thus may not reflect the same practices and standards present-ed in controlled research studies , such as those described on pages to Staff members at the schools in which these practices have been implemented generally feel positive about their efforts, their outcomes, and their progress.

8 At the same time, they tend to view their RTI procedures as a work in prog-ress. Staff members we have worked with are reflective and open in their critiques of their practices. They are committed to continued im-provement of their RTI implementations. These descriptions represent a current status of implementation, not an ideal. We want to dis-courage the conclusion that other schools need only replicate or adopt what is described in this Section . Due to numerous resource limitations, we have not sufficiently provided the contextual infor-mation about the decision-making, the intended outcomes, the development phases, costs, or even the significant staff development activi-ties that supported each implementation. Such details are critical to understanding, evaluating, and promoting the policies, procedures, and practices reflected in the descriptions that urge you to reflect on these descriptions de-liberately and carefully weigh this information so that if you choose to use the information provided, the decision to do so is made in the context of this incomplete : For more information about the instructional programs and assessments mentioned in this Section , see pages National Research Center on Learning Disabilities August 2006 School -Wide ScreeningJefferson Elementary SchoolPella, Iowa(Spring 2006)Overview and demographicsJefferson Elementary School has a total enroll-ment of 500 students , with two sections each of kin-dergarten through third grade and six sections each of fourth and fifth grades.

9 Nearly equal numbers of girls and boys attend the School . About 14 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, and about percent are served in special educa-tion. Five percent of the students are minority stu-dents, 95 percent are Caucasian, and six students are English language learners (ELL).Jefferson Elementary s responsiveness-to-inter-vention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, and special in readingKindergartners and first-graders are screened using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments in the fall, winter, and spring. The School also uses DIBELS fluency and accuracy assessments for students in the second and third grades and Fuchs fluency and accuracy as-sessments for students in the fourth and fifth grades. In addition to the fluency and accuracy measures, students in the second through fifth grades are as-sessed with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) in November and the Gates-McGinitie assessment in April.

10 (Second graders are also given the Gates-Mc-Ginitie in October.) Jefferson Elementary also uses a variety of assessments to measure specific district data and reference pointsWhen analyzing students screening data, the School uses reference points, not specific cut scores. The reference points are used to indicate whether a Student is performing below expectations and to guide School staff members as they determine ap-propriate interventions for students . The reference points, or scores, match up with proficiency scores of standardized tests. No single score stands alone in determining in-terventions for students , but rather data from mul-tiple sources (benchmark scores, fluency screenings, DIBELS, ITBS, Gates-McGinitie) are used to deter-mine which students need instruction beyond Tier 1 and which interventions will be most effective in meeting Student needs. Progress monitoring data also guide the deter-mination of the effectiveness of the normsFluency norms are based on norms set by Houghton Mifflin, Jefferson s reading series.


Related search queries