Implementing Georgia’s Pyramid of Intervention

Goals for Consortia Systematically understand the framework

of Pyramids of Intervention at Tier I, II, and III.

Begin to apply results of research into the development of system level pyramids.

Use guiding questions to revise policies, practices, and procedures that prevent equitable education for all students.

TIER 1 STANDARDS BASED CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION/LEARNING

All students participate in instruction that is:-In the general education classroom

-Standards-based -Differentiated

- Evidenced-based •Guided by progress monitoring & balanced assessment

-Planned to address all developmental domains (academic, communication/language, social etc.)

TIER 2: NEEDS BASED INSTRUCTION/LEARNING:STANDARD INTERVENTION PROTOCOLS

Targeted students participate in instruction that:-Is different from Tier 1

-Uses established intervention protocols -Provides enhanced opportunities for extended learning

-Uses flexible, small groups-Includes more frequent progress monitoring

-Addresses needs in all developmental domains (academic,communication/language, social etc.)

TIER 3: SST DRIVEN INSTRUCTION/LEARNINGTargeted students participate in:

-Individual assessment-Tailored interventions to

respond to their needs-Frequent formative assessments

-Consideration for specially designed instruction only when data indicates a need (e.g. gifted or

special education services)

TIER 4SPECIALLY DESIGNED

INSTRUCTION/LEARNINGTargeted students participate in:

-Specialized programs -Adapted content, methodology,

or instructional delivery-GPS access/extension

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PYRAMID OF INTERVENTIONS

Georgia Department of Education

Offices of Curriculum and Instruction and Teacher/Student Support

Why should we implement the Pyramid?Problem solving practices and response to intervention models work:

By creating the time, structures, and opportunities for teachers to engage in inquiry, and collegial dialogue, and to learn and practice effective problem solving.

By passionately focusing on collecting and analyzing evidence of student learning and celebrating student success.

By creating opportunities for universal prevention and early intervention activities.

By having high, but achievable, developmentally appropriate expectations for all students.

One key question determines when, where, & how to intervene.

Adapted from: Beth Doll, University of Colorado

Is it the Fish or the Water?

80%able

academic & emotionallearners

The Prevention/Intervention Triangle

Primary Prevention(School-wide): Promote academic & mental/emotional wellness for all students through: family involvement, positive school climate, social skills, teacher training, individualized instruction, team consultation, collaborative problem solving

Early Intervention: Provide proven structured and targeted remedial academic & mental/emotional support to students placed at-risk

Intensive Intervention: Evidence-based interventions that are comprehensive, coordinated, interagency supported, culturally competent, family focused, of high quality, and sustain help

15%

5%

Adapted from: Dwyer, K. & Osher, D. (2000) Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide. Washington DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, American Institutes for Research. (page 3)

Evaluate Effects

System wide expectations that must be in place to successfully implement the Pyramid

Strategic analyses will help identify the assets and needs specific to each unique learning community.

Schools will restructure so that teams of teachers can meet regularly to problem solve and share instructional strategies.

Teachers’ problem solving skills will be enhanced. Staff will learn what to “look for” when students are having

difficulty and be able to collect authentic information to guide focused interventions.

Inappropriate special education referrals will occur less frequently, thus limiting the possibility of disproportionality.

Pyramid framework will support improvements in student achievement and reductions in behavioral transgressions.

How can the framework of Pyramid of Interventions improve

a student's educational performance?

It is designed to specifically identify solutions - the instructional, behavioral and social adjustments that lead to student success.

It relies on evidence to support interventions.

Teachers are supported by staff skilled in counting behavior and measuring student achievement (e.g., DIBELS, AimsWeb, OAS, STEEP).

Benchmarks are established that indicate current performance. These “signposts” monitor student work and demonstrate progress toward skill attainment.

How do we operationalize Tier I and Tier II?

Key questions to answer are:- Do we have scientifically based curricula for all students in Reading, ELA, and math?- Are school wide screenings used to group students for supplementary assistance? - How are formative assessments analyzed to determine student needs?

Tier I: Example (Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. ,2005)

Step 1: Screening

In the first month of the school year, students are screened to identify those considered “at-risk”. System must define what is considered “at-risk”.

Tier I Screening Practices

Acceptable Practices: (1) The previous year’s state assessment scores are reviewed to identify any student scoring below the 25th percentile in reading or math; OR (2) An achievement test is administered to all children in a given grade, with at-risk children designated as those scoring below the 25th percentile

Tier I Screening Practices Best Practices: (1) Every student is assessed

using brief screening tools that demonstrate diagnostic utility for predicting performance on the reading and math state assessments or on the local graduation requirements; OR (2) Only those students who perform below the 25th percentile on the previous year’s state assessment or who perform below the 25th percentile on a more current test are screened individually with tools that have diagnostic usefulness.

Tier I Instruction and Monitoring

Students receive instruction in general education with evidence-based curricula and instructional strategies. The fidelity of the implementation is documented.

At-risk students are monitored for 8 weeks to identify the subset who respond inadequately to general education at Tier I.

How to determine the need for Tier II support?

Acceptable practice: At the end of 8 weeks, at-risk students are administered the screening tool or a brief standardized achievement test in the area of risk. Adequate Tier 1 response is operationalized with a score above the 16th percentile.

How to determine the need for Tier II support?

Best Practice: At-risk students are assessed every week for 8 weeks in the area of risk using brief monitoring tools. Adequate Tier 1 response is operationalized using (a) local or national normative estimates for weekly improvement OR (b) criterion-referenced figures for weekly improvement.

Implementing Tier II support

Tier 1 non-responders receive 10-week supplementary, diagnostic instruction. This additional instruction is clearly explained to parents documenting what strategies will be used, and the measurable short term goal.

Supplementary Tier II Practices Acceptable Practice: The school team

collaboratively problem-solve to design supplementary, diagnostic instruction tailored to the needs of the student. This instruction may be implemented by the classroom teacher, but would more likely be conducted by a specialist or aide under the supervision of the specialist.

Supplementary Tier II Practices

Best Practice: The Tier 1 non-responder participates in small group instruction with students who share similar instructional weaknesses. The group is taught at least 3 times per week, 30 minutes per session, by a certified teacher or aide who can accurately implement an evidence-based protocol.

When to determine Tier II success?

Acceptable Practice: At the end of 10 weeks, at-risk students are administered the screening tool or brief standardized assessment in the area of risk. Adequate Tier 2 response is operationalized with a score above the 25th percentile.

When to determine Tier II success?

Best Practice: At-risk students are assessed every week for 10 weeks in the area of risk using brief monitoring tools. Adequate Tier 2 response is operationalized using (a) local or national normative estimates for weekly improvement.

Montgomery County Public School: Example of Tier II implementation (Kovaleski, 2004)

• Students at “risk” were referred for problem solving and progress monitoring at each grade level. At risk students were those that scored below 25th percentile on previous year’s state assessment.

• Using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS)

• All K- 4th grade at-risk students were screened• (Nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency) 10/2004

• Students grouped in three groups• LOW RISK• SOME RISK• AT RISK (10/2004)

• Students in the some risk and at-risk groups were given 1 hour of focused reading in combination with their regular reading block. Progress monitoring during additional 1 hour instruction occurred every 2 weeks.

Georgia Reading First Model

All children are assessed using the DIBELS instrument in fall, winter, spring.

Those “at risk” or “some risk” are given additional instruction.

Progress monitoring occurs on a regular basis.

Reading First: Using a staggered reading blockTeam Rdg Write Math Sci/

SSAreas Lunch

K 8:45-10:30

10:30-11:30

1:35-2:35

12:15-12:50

12:50-1:35

11:30-12:15

1 8:45-10:30

12:00-1:00

1:00-2:00

2:00-2:30

11:15-12:00

10:30-11:15

2 10:30-12:15

9:45-10:30

8:45-9:45

1:15-1:40

1:40-2:25

12:30-1:15

3 10:30-12:15

9:30-10:30

1:00-2:00

2:00-2:30

8:45-9:30

12:15-1:00

4 12:45-2:30

8:45-9:35

10:20-11:20

11:20-11:55

9:35-10:20

11:55-12:40

5 12:45-2:30

9:45-10:25

8:45-9:45

11:50-12:35

10:25-11:10

11:10-11:50

Implementing a Staggered Reading Block After the initial grade level instruction,

students move during the reading block to homogenously grouped classrooms in order to better utilize all of their trained staff. A student would have a designated, highly qualified teacher in the area of reading who could be a general education teacher, a special education teacher, or an ESOL teacher depending on the students needs. The teachers with the high-risk children have smaller groups of children during the reading block.

Challenges faced with implementation

• Progress monitoring• Implementation of specific

targeted interventions • Time and competing

responsibilities• School-wide implementation• Personnel changes• A litigious and rule driven

environment• Systemic issues• Political will

How is your system implementing Tier I and Tier II? Do you have a screening measure in place?

If so, where is the data maintained? What is the cut-point to determine those

students that may be considered at-risk? How are students targeted for preventative

intervention? How long are students provided

preventative intervention? What determines success?

How has the role of general education teachers, specialists and support staff changed?

School Wide Screening Examples Texas Primary Reading Inventory (Foorman) DIBELS- Oral Reading Fluency measure (Good) AIMSweb EdCheckup Monitoring Basic Skills Progress STAR STEEP (Witt) OAS Gray Oral Reading Test Testgate/Thinkgate

Examples of schools providing Tier II support

Extended Learning Time After school Programs EIP program Academic skills for Connection Class High School Basic Reading or Math

Class Interventionist during uninterrupted 90

minute academic block (small group instruction)

Supplementary Instruction It is not merely

what is offered, but we must begin to evaluate how it is offered, who teaches it, and which students receive it.

Re-Cap on Tier 1 and Tier 2: How do we operationalize Tier I and Tier II?

Key questions to answer are:- Do we have scientifically based curricula for all students in Reading, ELA, and math?- Are school wide screenings used to group students for supplementary assistance? - How are formative assessments analyzed to determine student needs?

What is Tier 3 This should be the school’s line of

defense for reducing the number of students who are low performing or perhaps later referred for special education determination. Providing timely and evidence-based instructional strategies to at risk students can be the difference between those at-risk students successfully meeting standards.

When is Tier 3 support necessary?

If a student’s school-wide screening or progress monitoring results indicate a deficit in a specific area, an appropriate instructional intervention is implemented and progress within that intervention is monitored. These students are characterized as not making sufficient progress with Tier 1 and 2 instruction, falling behind on benchmark skills, and who require intense, additional instruction to achieve grade-level expectations.

What are the components of Tier 3? It consists of general education instruction

PLUS specialized intervention that contains: Small group instruction Mastery requirements of content (relative to cut

points identified on criterion screening measures and continued growth)

Frequency of progress monitoring Duration of the intervention ( Nine to 12 weeks

recommended) Frequency with which the intervention is

delivered (Three to four intervention session per week with 45-60 minutes per session)

Instructor qualifications

What is this Tier 3 or SST? Current process for SST

Every child that fails or is difficult to teach has collaboratively developed individual plan

Problems Limited evidence based interventions Lack of baseline data in deficit area(s) Teams are created without expertise provided Limited accountability for fidelity of implementation

Pyramid of Intervention Tier 3 Process More Prescriptive based on results of on-going

assessment Fewer Choices- Materials Readied—Pre-training Progress monitoring embedded

Why do we have SST

Having an SST at all public schools in the state of Georgia is mandated as a result of the 1984 Ollie Marshall court case (Marshall, 1984). The case came about due to concerns over the disproportionate placement of African-American students in special education.

The original 6 step process for SST

Conduct a needs identification Conduct a student assessment as needed Write an intervention plan detailing how the

student will be instructed with interventions Implement the plan Follow-up and support throughout

implementation Conduct continuous monitoring and evaluation

to determine if desired outcomes are occurring (SBOE rule 160-4-2-.32)

What does the 6 step process mean?

Define the specific problem (Sallie reads 65 words correctly with 7 errors on a fifth grade CBM)

Review baseline data of student performance

Write measurable goals in the deficit area Implement plan Monitor effectiveness of plan with

formative assessments Evaluate to determine if there is success

How must SST change? The current teams must adopt a problem-

solving approach that is based on data and a continuing system of evaluation.

Problems must be objectively defined, observed, and measured directly in the classroom.

The data collected must be analyzed, using information to develop hypotheses about the cause of the problem and the appropriate selection of evidence-based strategies to remedy them.

Progress Monitoring at all levels

Curriculum-Based Measurement Warehouse:

A world of CBM resources under one roof

A service of

www.interventioncentral.org

Progress Monitoring

How to determine if it is evidence based or not?

Resource: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring

www.studentprogress.org/chart/chart.asp

Standards for Judging High-Quality Progress Monitoring Scientific, research-based instruction includes

the continuous progress monitoring of student performance across all tiers

Teachers follow a designated procedure and schedule for progress monitoring and for regrouping students as needed

Measures are administered frequently to inform instruction and curricular placement decisions

Progress monitoring occurs in all tiers Progress monitoring measures are appropriate to

the curriculum, grade level, and tier level Data resulting from progress monitoring is

documented and analyzed

Standards for Judging High-Quality Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring uses a standardized

benchmark by which progress is measured and determined to be either sufficient or insufficient

Teachers use progress monitoring data to evaluate instructional effectiveness and to be informed about the potential necessity for changing the instruction

An established data-management system allows ready access to students’ progress monitoring data

After progress monitoring, a graph is completed to display data for analysis and decision making and to indicate percentages of students at risk, at some risk, and at low risk

Standards for Judging High-Quality Progress Monitoring Staff members receive training in the

administration and interpretation of progress monitoring measures

School designates reasonable cut points and decision rules for the level, slope, or percentage of mastery to help determine responsiveness and distinguish adequate from inadequate responsiveness

Cut points are reviewed frequently and adjusted as necessary

A rationale is provided for the cut points and decision rules

How does progress monitoring align with Tier 3?

The Pyramid of Interventions proposes a certain role for SST in the overall plan for teaching and learning: After all students have been provided quality standards based classroom instruction and learning in Tier 1, and targeted students have participated in needs-based strategic interventions in Tier 2, those students are supported by Tier 3- SST driven interventions based on the results of ongoing assessments

SUCCESS

SST

CTAR/Guided Study

Academic Study

Voluntary Tutoring

Advisement/Mentoring

Teacher/Parent/StudentCommunication

AllStudents

Can

LearnAtH

igh

Leve

ls

Reflection on your SST

Are Tier 3 intervention research-based?

Are Tier 3 interventions different from the curricular materials used in Tier 1 instruction?

In addition to Tier 1 and 2 instruction, are students receiving Tier 3 interventions for at least 45 minutes each day for nine to 12 weeks.

Key Question

What do we do when students don’t learn?

Building a Professional Learning Community

1999-2000•Progress Rprts.,•Elect. Grd. Bks•Vol. Tutoring

•Parent Contacts

2000-2001•Advmnt. Trng.•Common Finals

2001-2002•Inst. Calendars

•Bnchmrk.Asmts.•Acad. Study

•Crs. Tm. Leads•4th Per. Advmt.

2002-2003•Infrm. Crs. Tms.•Advmt. Handbk.

2003-2004•Frml. Crs. Tm.Acts.

•Gud.St.•Rstr.Lunch

•ITF•Math Tutoring

2004-2005•Bulldog Teams

Professional Learning and SST

“It is not known what types of training are provided for Student Support Team members, SST chairpersons, and principals in different school districts.”

(Walls, 2005)

Training and Documentation SST should be included in professional

learning opportunities to enhance the process and the required documentation.

The current SST Resource Manual states that the documentation should make the actions of SST “so clear that new teachers each year will have no difficulty determining what has been tried.”

Cherokee Count School District (May be used in folder) Student Support Team Summary of Test Scores/Grades

_____________________School Student_____________________________________ID#___________Grade___________________Teacher___________________________________ Progress

Report 1st 9 Wks

Report Card 1st 9 Wks

Progress Report 2nd 9 Wks

Report Card 2nd 9 Wks

1st Semester Grades

Progress Report 3rd 9 Wks

Report Card 3rd 9 Wks

Progress Report 4th 9 Wks

Report Card 4th 9 Wks

2nd Semester Grades

End of Year Grades

Reading

Language Arts

Math

Science

Social Studies

Testing Information: Attach a copy of the current year results to this paper. SAS Stanine Phase I CogAT Cognitive Testing:_____CogAT Grade_____ ______Other_________________Grade_____ Academic Testing: _____ITBS Grade_____ _____CRCT Grade _____ _____Other _____________Grade_____

Voc

abul

ary

Rea

ding

C

ompr

ehen

sion

Rea

ding

T

otal

Lis

teni

ng

Cap

ital

izat

ion

Pun

ctua

tion

Wor

d U

se

Lan

guag

e A

rts

Tot

al

Mat

h C

on.

Mat

h P

robl

ems

Mat

h T

otal

Cor

e T

otal

Soc

ial

Stu

dies

Sci

ence

Sou

rces

of

Info

rmat

ion

Com

posi

te

Wor

d A

naly

sis

Mat

h C

ompu

tati

on

Grade Equiv.

NPR

Phase II K-TEA (___/___/___) Standard Stanine K-BIT (___/___/___) Standard Stanine Score Score Score Score

CELF 4 Screener _________________________ Notes:

Cherokee County School District

Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent of Schools March 2005

Verbal

Nonverbal

Quantitative

Total

Expressive Vocabulary

Definitions

Vocabulary

Matrices

Composite

Mathematics

Reading

Spelling

Composite

Student Intervention Plan- Must review progress in relation to baseline data

Cherokee County School District Student Intervention Plan

Date ___/___/___ Student’s Name ___________________________________ Grade ______ School Year ____________ Teacher ___________ School ___________________________ Area of Difficulty: __________________________________________________________________ (List only one per page – ex. written expression, reading fluency, social skills, etc)

Date Chosen

Intervention/Strategy

Method of Eval*

(see below)

Baseline

Criteria for

Progress

Date of Review/Progress Data

(top box) / (bottom box) 1

2

3

4

* Method of Evaluation Dated Comments (Be sure to include the date for each comment)

Classroom Tests (CT) Behavior Chart (BC) Data Collection (DC) Teacher Observation (TO; must be recorded) Work Samples (WS) Classwork Grades (CG) Homework Grades (HG) Parent Observation (PO; must be recorded) Other: _____________________________ Other: _____________________________

Final Reflection Is your school using individual student

data to determine instructional needs?

How does SST document a student’s ability to progress within the curriculum?

Are SST intervention plans created with specific goals, individualized interventions, and expected target and end date?