# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 1: The Rationale and Context for a Data-Driven School (please add your questions/comments as you read)

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 1: The Rationale and Context for a Data-Driven School (please add your questions/comments as you read)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who are our key stakeholders and how do we cultivate "buy-in" to MTSS reform/data-based decision-making culture?

Interventionists, Ryan, John, Me, Isaac

Teachers do not understand what MTSS is

They need to understand tier I interventions

2. Who needs to be invited to this team because they are a strong influencer? What teachers or specialists have influence and need to be supportive/convinced? How do we accomplish this?

Helpers: Ashley Fetchin

Leslie DePace

Lori Sacco (Cara Hessler, Terri Seltzer)

Catie Chinchilla

Amy Shultz

Nay Sayers:

Needs to come from us or outside (IU) not from teachers

3. Have our teachers/specialists been trained on HOW to administer STAR and aimsWeb assessments?

No. We need time to share the data with them. Look at the data. Where are the weaknesses?

Tier 1 groupings? Help teachers determine Tier 1.

WIN Time?

Data analysis. Brainstorm ways to close the gap.

We need to learn more about WIN time

4. Are there fidelity checks?

5. Do we provide new staff and refresher training?

6. Are staff trained on WHAT to do with the data from benchmark screening?

7. If not, how can we change this?

8. As a team, how do we access research-based interventions for all tiers?

9. How do we share these interventions with teachers? (intervention database? via Google Drive? via Padlet?)

10. How do we train and SUPPORT teachers in the use of interventions?

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 3: Systems-Level Problem Analysis

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 3: Systems-Level Problem Analysis

# data[].attributes.body
1. Chapter 2 focused on problem identification. In other words, IS CORE INSTRUCTION EFFECTIVE?

1. Are 80% of our students at or above proficient?

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Qhz2tSCl0Sylhf_lY_DqSuIwZxFY27cmBG3lHtJ-yI/edit?usp=sharing

2. How much are our students growing?

1. How do we analyze growth???

1. What is a student growth percentile (SGP)?
A student growth percentile, or SGP, compares a student’s growth to that of his or her academic peers nationwide. Academic peers are students in the same grade with similar achievement history on Star Assessments. SGP is reported on a 1–99 scale, with lower numbers indicating lower relative growth and higher numbers indicating higher relative growth. For example, an SGP score of 90 means the
student has shown more growth than 90 percent of his/her academic peers.

2. https://www.renaissance.com/resources/student-growth-percentile/

1. "An SGP of 50 can be thought of as typical growth for a student, given his/her grade and prior score history; however, state and local policy makers may define typical growth as a less precise range, such
as 35 to 65 or 40 to 60 SGP."

2. Chapter 3 is focused on Problem Analysis: WHY is there a discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?

1. Look at current: performance of different population groups; profiles of strength and weakness; attendance levels; behavior; etc.

2. Look longitudinally (this is why implementing effective MTSS is a multi-year process).

1. Look at related factors such as student attendance and behavior, student engagement, family and student perceptions, environmental changes, etc.

3. WHY?

1. Hypotheses must be "alterable" (Circle of Influence vs Circle of Concern).

2. WHYS=a function of a mismatch between what the system is currently providing and what the needs of the students are. "needs-fulfilling" model. What do we have the power to change?

3. What appear to be the unalterable factors that are the root cause of the problem? How might we, in fact, alter them?

1. Engage external resources in the community in creative ways.

4. Root cause analysis: "five-whys". MUST focus an issues that are within our ability to control.

1. At least 5 but often more whys. Often multiple meetings needed with exploration in-between. Keep going until you have a truly actionable answer, including the what and how as related to instruction.

5. Problem analysis in context:

1. Bernhardt model

6. Skipping Problem Analysis

1. Many teams want to go directly from problem identification to problem analysis.

1. Problem analysis is hard

2. Budgeting issues: carrying over line items means we carry forward programs regardless of effectiveness

1. "If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always gotten."

3. One-size fits all: e.g. "Title I; Math Intervention" without analyzing actual problem

1. A standard treatment protocol may be broadly effective. HOWEVER It's important that intervention is matched to students with similar needs and that it meets those needs, & that ongoing data is collected on each student to gauge effectiveness.

4. Superficial problem analysis:

1. Accepting assumptions over true analysis

2. Team doesn't dig deeply enough

"THE MOMENT WE THROW OUR HANDS UP IN THE FACE OF THE MAGNITUE OF THE PROBLEM, WE HAVE LOST" (p. 53)

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 4: Systems-Level Plan Development, Plan Implementation, and Plan Evaluation

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 4: Systems-Level Plan Development, Plan Implementation, and Plan Evaluation

# data[].attributes.body
PLAN DEVELOPMENT: Must step directly from problem analysis OR we run the risk of addressing the wrong problem. STEPS:

1. What is the goal?

2. What is the intervention plan to meet this goal?

1. What Works Clearinghouse (ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc): reviews evidence to support the effectiveness of purchasable intervention programs

2. National Center on Intensive Intervention at American Institutes for Research (www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools)

3. Intervention Central (interventioncentral.org)

1. The latter two include scripts to implementing free research-based intervention methods and strategies.

4. Five key characteristics of effective instruction: (1) correctly targets skills, (2) includes explicit instruction, (3) provides an appropriate level of challenge, (4) allows students frequent opportunities to respond, and (5) supplies students with immediate feedback.

5. It is critical to carefully investigate and take into account the function of a student’s or group of students’ problem before deciding upon an appropriate intervention. Functions include:

1. Have not yet acquired the skill

2. Are not motivated motivated to demonstrate the skill

3. Are not yet proficient in the skill

4. Are not yet fluent in demonstrating the skill

5. Have not yet generalized demonstration of the skill to other settings

6. Evidence-Based Intervention Network (ebi.missouri.edu): helps users identify which of these reasons for academic failure best explains their student’s or group of students’ problem and which research-based interventions might best address the problem.

3. How will progress be monitored?

1. How often progress will be monitored?

1. It depends on how sensitive the measure is to student growth & how intensive the intervention is.

2. For how long?

1. In most cases, 4 data points at or above (below if looking for reduction) the goal unless a high-stakes decision

2. Many more than four data points are needed before a reliable high-stakes decision (such as sped eligibility) can be made (12+ data points?)

3. By whom?

1. Three common models:

1. General education and special education teachers or intervention specialists themselves screening and progress monitoring the students in their own classrooms, on their own special education caseloads or in their own intervention groups.

2. An identified assessment team of local data leaders—often including school psychologists, special education

teachers, intervention specialists, or in some cases, trained paraprofessionals—conducts screening and/or progress monitoring with all students regardless of which classroom they are in, caseload they are on, or intervention group of which they are a part.

3. Technology-delivered assessments are provided either in a group- or individually

administered environment. All three models have potential advantages and disadvantages.

4. With which tools?

1. www.intensiveintervention.org (Typically general outcome measures or GOMs)

2. “mastery monitoring” measures: CBMs of individual skills or classroom formative assessments developed in PLCs

5. How will the data be used to make decisions?

1. Many assessment-specific progress monitoring systems, such as AIMSweb, as well

as assessment-agnostic systems, such as ChartDog 2.0 (www.jimwrightonline.com/php/

chartdog_2_0/chartdog.php), allow users to indicate within progress monitoring graphs

when an intervention is changed by inserting a vertical line. The slope of the student’s

progress is then recalculated from that point forward to indicate the impact of the change

on the student’s growth trajectory.

4. SYSTEMS-LEVEL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

1. How will intervention integrity be ensured?

1. The person who delivers the intervention must have

the time to deliver it, must be well trained initially, and must be provided with frequent refresher trainings in delivering the intervention.

1. We recommend that paraprofessionals cover Tier 1 general education classroom instruction during times when supplemental intervention is being provided to at-risk students, releasing the licensed general education teachers to be able to provide Tier 3 individualized support to the most needy students.

2. (page 63)

5. SYSTEMS-LEVEL PLAN EVALUATION

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 5: Data-Driven Problem Solving at the Grade, Classroom, and Student Levels

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 5: Data-Driven Problem Solving at the Grade, Classroom, and Student Levels

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 6: Implementing Data Teaming at the School and Grade Levels for Academic Skills

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 6: Implementing Data Teaming at the School and Grade Levels for Academic Skills

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 7: Implementing Data Teaming at the School and Grade Levels for Behavior and Social–Emotional Skills

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 7: Implementing Data Teaming at the School and Grade Levels for Behavior and Social–Emotional Skills

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 8: Data Management Using Technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 8: Data Management Using Technology

# data[].attributes.headline
Bonus Chapter: Characteristics of Effective Teams

# data[].attributes.subject
Bonus Chapter: Characteristics of Effective Teams

# data[].attributes.headline
Chapter 2 : Systems-Level Problem Identification

# data[].attributes.subject
Chapter 2 : Systems-Level Problem Identification

# data[].attributes.body
1. IS CORE INSTRUCTION EFFECTIVE?

1. Are 80% of our students at or above proficient?

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Qhz2tSCl0Sylhf_lY_DqSuIwZxFY27cmBG3lHtJ-yI/edit?usp=sharing

2. How much are our students growing?

1. How do we analyze growth???

1. What is a student growth percentile (SGP)?
A student growth percentile, or SGP, compares a student’s growth to that of his or her academic peers nationwide. Academic peers are students in the same grade with similar achievement history on Star Assessments. SGP is reported on a 1–99 scale, with lower numbers indicating lower relative growth and higher numbers indicating higher relative growth. For example, an SGP score of 90 means the
student has shown more growth than 90 percent of his/her academic peers.

2. https://www.renaissance.com/resources/student-growth-percentile/

1. "An SGP of 50 can be thought of as typical growth for a student, given his/her grade and prior score history; however, state and local policy makers may define typical growth as a less precise range, such
as 35 to 65 or 40 to 60 SGP.".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home | Center on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 2007, the MTSS Center has been a national leader in supporting states, districts, and schools across the country in implementing an MTSS framework that integrates data and instruction within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and support students’ social, emotional…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was created in 2002 to be a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for what works in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explore all

Educators

Find tools and resources to support general and special education teachers, interventionists, school psychologists, school counselors, and other school-based personnel working with students with intensive academic and behavioral needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore all Find tools and resources to support general and special education teachers, interventionists, school psychologists, school counselors, and other school-based personnel working with students with intensive academic and behavioral needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educators and classroom leaders look to academic interventions to help promote response to intervention and rti programs for classroom management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kindergarten and First Grade Student Center Activities Phonological Awareness | Phonics | Fluency | Vocabulary | Comprehension