RtI/MTSS Progress Monitoring and Data-Driven Decisions

RtI/MTSS SPE 501-Spring 2021
Module 6 Adapted Assignment
Progress Monitoring Summary:
Step One:
Review all components of the IRIS Module on Progress
Monitoring :IRIS
Step Two:
Write a three page typewritten double spaced summary of the
Progress Monitoring process. Your summary does not need to
include citations, just a clear summarization that shows your
understanding of the process. Your summary should include the
following points of the progress monitoring process.
A description of:
· The role of formative assessments
· The role of progress monitoring
· How progress monitoring measures are chosen
· The role of the graph of progress (hint: a goal line and a trend
line (student’s progress) should be mentioned here)
· How data based instructional decisions are made
· How progress is communicated to pertinent staff and parents.
Step Three: RTI/MTSS Assignment - 501
The role of formative assessments is; this type of
assessment occurs during instruction, that allows the teachers to
decide if students are learning as the material distributed to the
class. This intended process of assessing as learning is
happening which permits teachers to adjust to the necessary
instruction to meet the learning needs of their students.
Formative assessments provide vital information
regarding a student's progress toward particular learning

objectives, her comprehension of skills or material being taught
and any misinformation she has.
This assessment permits teachers to make informed
decisions about when to revise or reteach material or skills or to
adjust instruction. Also it identifies students who are constantly
struggling.
Progress monitoring is a kind of formative assessment that
is utilized within the elementary, middle and highschool
environment. Progress monitoring permits teachers to;
⦁ "Frequently and constantly evaluate student learning.
⦁ Monitor the effectiveness of their instruction
⦁ Make instructional changes to improve student's academic
progress."
There are two kinds of progress monitoring; mastery
measurement (MM) and general outcome measurement (GOM)
which is often referred to as a curriculum based measurement
(CBM).The (GOM) model is most commonly used for progress
monitoring. Even Though, scores from reading measures
evaluate a student's progress, the results aren't used to assign
grades. When students' reading skills improve, so will their
scores involving reading measures as well. Initially, the scores
are low at the beginning of the year and scores progress over a
period of time, which suggest they are learning.
There are many benefits to utilizing the (GOM). The role
of progress monitoring also includes;
⦁ "Monitor student progress over time
⦁ Determine if the current instruction is assisting students to
learn.
⦁ Determine if students are making adequate progress toward
their learning goals
⦁ Identify students who aren't progressing adequate toward
their learning goals.
⦁ Predict student performance on the year-end assessment
⦁ Effectively communicate academic performance to
students, parents, and other school professionals."
Step one of progress monitoring is choosing a measure.

The GOM reading measures are utilized to assess key reading
skills for example; word identification and fluency. The reading
program chosen by the school district including grade level
progress monitoring. Certain GOM measures are chosen by the
school district or state administrators. This happens when using
MTSS or RTI framework regarding instruction. Teachers also
have the authority to choose GOM measures to monitor student
progress and make instructional decisions. After selecting the
GOM measure one must use/ask these principles/questions;
⦁ "Does it correspond with grade level reading skills?
⦁ Is this measure reliable and valid?
⦁ Does the measure have sufficient alternate versions?
⦁ Is the measure quick, within one to eight minutes, and
easy to give?
⦁ Is the measure designed to be delivered to individual
students or to groups? However, group tests are often more
convenient than individually administered ones.)
⦁ Are versions of this test available in languages other than
English?"
The teacher decides which reading measure is developmentally
adequate for the students.
Another reason for using the GOM measurement is if
procedures for struggling students were included to identify the
correct level of test. This measurement consists of students
who aren't performing at grade level.
1. Administer lhree PRF probes at the grade level at which the
teacher expect the student to read competently by the end of the
year. However, this may not be the student's grade level.
The goal line is simply a line that connects a one student's
baseline performance to her expected mid-year or end of
performance goal. When a goal line is created, it consists of
establishing a baseline and determining the expected goal. The
goal line indicates the students expected average weekly rate of
growth or rate improvement (ROI) necessary to meet their end
of the end of the year goal.
Data based decisions are made when at least 6 data points

are collected. The teacher's prepared to evaluate the student's
performance and decides if the student is prepared to meet their
long or short term goals. Progress monitoring for a teacher who
performs weekly, is equivalent to reviewing data and making
instructional decisions around every 6 weeks.
One way teachers are able to evaluate the performance of
a student is using the Four Point Method that consists of
examining the relationship of the four most recent data points
and the goal line located on the student's graph. Deciding if the
data the points are above, below or on the goal line allows the
teacher to make a data based decision.
⦁ If the majority of points are higher than the goal line, the
student's performance is above expectations and requires a
slightly more ambitious goal. Increase the goal line, if the
students data is above the goal line
⦁ Change instruction if the majority of points are beneath the
goal line of the student. then the student isn't making progress.
The teacher should attempt a different instructional approach
and should continue to collect data. If the student data is
beneath the goal line.
⦁ Don't make any changes if the majority of the points are at
the goal line, the students are on target to meet the year end
goal and the instructional method is working. There shouldn't be
any changes to instruction.
Once the teacher evaluates the student’s performance and makes
adjustments to the instruction provided by the graph, she shares
vital information with the students, parents and other
professionals. When the teacher shares the information with the
students they become aware of their performance and begin to
understand, students begin to appreciate the relationship
between their efforts and performance.
The teachers show parents the student’s graph, they are
able to show certain areas if a child is making progress or not,
then changes must be made to address the issue.
Teachers can also find it necessary to communicate to
other professionals regarding the student's grades. This was

before an IEP meeting the IEP team will have data on
information/data on the student's progress.
Submit to Dropbox
Curriculum Based Measurement
Seeking success for all
Dr. Pam Jessee
National Louis University
Fall, 2020
1
One Perspective on History
Our education system has grown up through a process of
“Disjointed Incrementalism” (Reynolds, 1988)
The current
Education
System’s
Programmatic
Evolution
K-12 Education

Gifted
Title 1
SPED
Migrant
ELL
At Risk
2
Unintended Effects
Conflicting programs
Conflicting funding streams
Redundancy
Lack of coordination across programs
Nonsensical rules about program availability for students
Extreme complexity in administration and implementation of
the programs
3
Responsiveness to Intervention
Definition: A problem solving model to monitor the progress of
all students on academic targets
Uses: Identify struggling students and intervene with research
based methods
Legal mandate: By the year 2010 all school districts in the State
of Illinois will employ a Responsiveness to Intervention model
to determine the severity of academic deficiency and the need
for specially designed instruction.

Not a SPECIAL EDUCATION INTIATIVE. Although it will be
used to assist in the identification of students with disabilities,
the main use of RtI is to identify struggling students and
intervene with research based methods
4
4
Three-tiered system
Tier One: Universal Screening- Administer CBMs three times
a year: Fall, Winter, Spring
Tier Two: Research- Based Intervention, generally in the
general education classroom and Progress Monitoring using
CBMs.
Tier Three: Intensive, Individual instruction with progress
monitoring using CBMs
5
5
6
Why RtI?

Requires schools to monitor progress and identify students who
are at risk
Guarantees intervention to all students who are struggling
Provides schools the tools for data driven educational decision
making and goal setting for all students
7
7
Once Behind – Always behind UNLESS you intervene
Research:
“The probability of remaining a poor reader at the end of
4th grade, given a child was a poor reader at the end of 1st
grade was .88.” (Juel, 1994)
74% of children who are poor readers in 3rd grade remain
poor readers in 9th grade. (Francis, et al, 1996)
8
There have been many studies conducted to follow the outcome
of children who struggle
These 2 studies are frequently cited:
The first study was conducted in 1994 by Connie Juel
She found that the probability of being a poor reader in 4th
grade for children who leave 1st grade behind is 88% - that’s
very, very likely
David Francis and colleagues at the University of Houston
found 2 years later (in 1996) that the trajectory established
early continues
Not only are students who are behind in first grade also behind

in 4th grade
But 74% of the students behind in 3rd grade are still behind in
9th grade
This body of converging findings during the mid-1990’s led to a
shift in research focus
what it takes to change a student’s nearly assured outcome of
problems
This evidence is what led to focusing on designing assessment
instruments that can help us find children early – before they
are on a path of failure
Who has an extra two hours !!
According to the NICHD Branch of the National Institutes of
Health
It takes 4 times as long to intervene in 4th grade as it does to
intervene in late Kindergarten
2 hours per day
15/30mins.day
Late K
4th grade
9
Another body of research studied the effectiveness of
intervention offered at many different points in time
The result is that
Although it is possible to intervene later and still teach children
to read
It is less efficient
It takes 4 times as long to intervene in 4th grade as in late
kindergarten

Another way to look at this is that it takes 2 hours per day of
intervention in 4th grade to move a student’s skills the same
distance as if we had provided 30 minutes per day in K
And it is sometimes less effective
Dr. Joseph Torgesen from Florida and others have been raising
concerns about difficulties in helping students achieve fluency
even if they can be taught to accurately decode words IF the
intervention comes later
New Model
Prediction and Prevention
Old Model - Wait to Fail
intervention instruction was tied to special education
qualifications
Services tied to achieving an IQ-Achievement discrepancy
Many children failed to qualify until 3rd grade or later
New Model – Preventive and an RTI approach
Help is not tied to special education
Receive intervention instruction as soon as they red flag
Diagnostic testing only after the student’s lack of
progress in intervention
Enables help to be given immediately - early
10
Grade level corresponding to age
1 2 3 4
Reading grade level

4
3
2
1
5
2.5
5.2
Early Intervention DOES Change Reading Outcomes
At Risk on Early Screening
Low Risk on Early Screening
3.2
Control
With research-based core but without extra instructional
intervention

4.9
Intervention
With substantial instructional intervention
Slide from Reading First Leadership Academy
11
At-risk students randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
control group – improved classroom reading program only
or a group that received more intensive reading instruction in
first and second grade.
Let’s see what happened
[click] The dotted red line shows the progress of the children
who did not receive extra instructional intervention, and you
can see that improved classroom instruction produced slightly
better outcomes for them than in the earlier study in the same
schools – 3.2 reading level vs. 2.5
[click] However, the children who were identified by the
screening tests and received substantial instructional
intervention did almost as well as average children by the end
of fourth grade.
Improved classroom instruction will help our most at-risk
children learn to read better, but most will require more
intensive interventions if we expect them to read at grade level
by the end of fourth grade.
Curriculum Based Measurements are….
Formative assessments that monitor progress of math, reading
and writing skills
A repeated assessment that measures a specific skill the same
way over a period of time

Valid, reliable and normed on large populations of students
12
Things to remember about CBMs
Serve as signs of general achievement
Measure skills not knowledge
Are standardized tests
Are reliable, valid and normed on thousands of students across
the country
Quick and easy to administer and score
Provide information for decision making
13
Progress Monitoring
We want to answer two questions?
Is the child showing progress?
How does the child compare to his peers?
14
Tools for Monitoring Progress
Chart where the child starts (baseline)
Chart where we want the child to be at the end of the
intervention period (aimline)

Chart scores on the CBM
15
BASELINE
Beginning point for monitoring progress
Administer three prompts
Two methods:
Let’s say that a student scores a 5, 8, 7 on the prompts
Average the three scores
Baseline = 5 + 8 + 7 = 20 20 ÷ 3 = 6.7 ( 7 rounded)
Take the score in the middle
Of the three scores 7 is the one in the middle
16
Charting the Baseline
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9

7 ☻
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Aimline
This is where we predict how much progress we want the
student to make during the intervention period.
Compute:
Weeks of intervention × progress each week
Example: 8 weeks of intervention and increase score by 2
each week (8 × 2 = 16)
Add to Baseline 7 + 16 = 23
Plot the end score and draw the line
Here’s what aimline would look like on a chart
23 ☻
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7 ☻ AIMLINE
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Progress Monitoring
Once the aim line has been plotted, the student’s score is

marked after each assessment.
The next slide illustrates the scores of a student after several
measurements have been charted.
Progress Monitoring
Students Scores
Week #19Week #211Week #315Week #412Week #519Week
#617Week #721
Chart the progress
23
☻
21 ☻
19 ☻
17
15 ☻
13
11 ☻ ☻
9 ☻
7 ☻ AIMLINE
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Question #1
Is the student making progress?

Question #2
How does the student compare to his same age peers?
Growth Tables
Aimsweb provides growth tables that show
Scores at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th & 90th percentiles
Scores and percentiles at each grade level
Scores and percentiles for Fall, Winter and Spring testing
Rate of Improvement information
Winter testing: 4th grader Score 12
How does this student compare to his peers?
Sample Classroom Data Chart

A word about this process
It is not about the testing
It is about the interventions you are doing to help kids improve
The testing is tool to help you validate that what you are doing
is working
Important to continually review the interventions that you are
using and change direction if kids are not making progress
This may really be a way that we can insure that we leave no
child behind!
CBM areas
READING MAZE: comprehension task
MATHEMATICS COMPUTATION: ability to add, subtract,
multiply and divide
31
Aimsweb READING MAZE
TEACHER KEY

Alan was a very brave and adventurous boy. He
enjoyed learning new things and (exploring) the land behind his
house. One (morning) before he went exploring, he packed (his)
backpack. He put many things inside. (He) packed a flashlight,
a candle, matches, (a) compass, popcorn, a hard hat, and (his)
lunch. Then he journeyed into the (woods) to his new secret
spot.
STUDENT PROMPT:
Alan was a very brave and adventurous boy. He
enjoyed learning new things and (adventure, backpack,
exploring) the land behind his house. One (learned, morning,
things) before he went exploring, he packed (him, his, it)
backpack. He put many things inside. (One, He, It) packed a
flashlight, a candle, matches, (a, an, or) compass, popcorn, a
hard hat, and (went, his, he) lunch. Then he journeyed into the
(hard, woods, candle) to his new secret spot
32
Reading Maze Practice Test
Recommended for first time testing especially with younger
children as they may not understand the task.
Use administration manual for script and directions
You model the first sentence
You do the second sentence together
You have students do the third sentence independently and you
check for accuracy

The dog (apple, broke, ran) after the cat. The cat ran (fast,
green, for) up the hill. The dog barked (in, at, is) the cat.
33
READING MAZE
DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING
Whole group or individually administered
Students read the passage to themselves and choose the word
that best fits into the sentence
3 minute time limit
Script is in your handout!
SCORING
Correct answer: matches the scoring template
Number of correct answers
Record: Correct Responses/Errors i.e. 24/2
See the handout or the website for more information!
34
Aimsweb Mathematics
Grade levels 1-12
Single process
Addition
Subtraction
Multiplication
Division
Double Process:
Addition/Subtraction
Multiplication/Division

All Facts
35
Mathematics
Directions for administration
Whole group or individually administered
2 minutes for grade 1-3
4 minutes for grades 4-8
Script is in your handout!
Scoring
CORRECT DIGITS (not correct answers)
36
Mathematics Scoring
Scoring Key:
Student prompt:
37

Math scoring
Correct Digits - Each correct digit that a student writes is
marked with an underline and counted
Incomplete Problems - Sometimes students don’t finish a
problem. Score for the number of correct digits that are
written
X-ed Out Problems - Sometimes students start a problem and
then cross it out. Sometimes students go back and write answers
for problems they have crossed out. Ignore the X and score what
you see.
38
Math Scoring
Legibility and Reversed or Rotated Numbers - Sometimes trying
to figure out what number the student wrote can be challenging,
especially with younger students or older students with
mathematics achievement problems. To make scoring efficient
and reliable, we recommend attention to three rules.
1. If it is difficult to determine what the number is at all, count
it wrong.
2. If the reversed number is obvious, but correct, count it as a
correct digit.
3. If the numbers 6 or 9 are potentially rotated and the digit is
currently incorrect, count it as an incorrect digit.
39
Error Analysis
Error Analysis is looking at the types of mistakes the student is

making in order to determine what needs to be taught and
retaught!
What kinds of errors are these?
5 + 0 = 0
37 314
+23 +397
6 × 5 = 11 14 601
40
Comments
Questions
Chart100BaselineBaselineWk1Wk1Wk2Wk2wk3wk3wk4wk4wk
5wk5wk6wk6wk7wk7wk8wk8wk9wk9wk10wk10
16
16
19
19
22
17
25
22
28
26

31
28
34
30
37
37
40
36
43
46
Sheet1BaselineWk1Wk2wk3wk4wk5wk6wk7wk8wk9wk10Aimli
ne1619222528313437404346Sam161917222628303736To resize
chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.
Chart1SamSamSamAlexAlexAlexGloriaGloriaGloriaHerber tHer
bertHerbertWilliamWilliamWilliamSusieSusieSusieTracyTracyT
racyPhilPhilPhilPatriciaPatriciaPatriciaWalterWalterWalterAnn
AnnAnnThomasThomasThomasJoseJoseJoseAmandaAmandaAm
andaLoreneLoreneLoreneMichaelMichaelMichael
Fall
Winter
Spring
15
40
21
62
39
80
21
59
21
63
22
39
39
99
37

65
38
74
42
81
34
66
29
43
58
95
62
79
19
47
25
42
Sheet1FallWinterSpringSam1540Alex2162Gloria3980Herbert21
59William2163Susie2239Tracy3999Phil3765Patricia3874Walter
4281Ann3466Thomas2943Jose5895Amanda6279Lorene1947Mic
hael2542
Sheet1
SPE 501
Summer, 2020
IEP writing
Summer 2020
Module 3
Dr. Pam Jessee

A student profile with formal evaluations and academic
achievement.
The beginning dates of the program and its duration.
A statement of special instructional factors that are to be
addressed in the IEP.
A statement of transportation needs.
A statement of opportunities to participate with nondisabled
peers.
2
A statement of frequency and method of progress reports.
The signature page that provides a statement of least restrictive
environment.
Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP), if needed.
Transition plans included in the IEP for students age
14 ½ and over.
Benchmark pages for students taking alternative state
assessments.
3

IEP Goals
The IEP goals pages are the most important section of the
document. They focus on the specific areas that need special
education services and include the following:
Present level of performance statements,
Measurable annual goals,
Evaluations used to measure annual goals,
Benchmarks to be achieved to meet goals (If student is taking
an alternative state assessment), and
Special education and related services needed to achieve the
annual goals.
4
Present levels of Performance
Student Strengths
Parental Educational concerns
Academic Functioning
Functional Behavior
PLOP: Academic Functioning
Things to consider:
ANSWER THE TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
Is the child making progress?
How do they compare to typically developing peers?
AND: What is the evidence?
OTHER THINGS YOU CAN CONSIDER

Learning style.
Attention strengths or deficits.
Organization skills.
Social skills.
Creative thinking abilities.
Logical reasoning.
Physical abilities (fatigue, sensory issues, etc.)
PLOP example:
Sara is quiet in the classroom. Her visual memory and visual
processing scores are above average, so she learns easily
through pictures and images. She is ahead of her peers in
science and social studies, as well as in writing and reading.
Sara’s standardized reading composite test score is at the 73rd
percentile. Her writing composite is at the 69th percentile. Sara
struggles with math. Her standardized scores for math
computation are at the 12th percentile. Her math reasoning
scores are at the 18th percentile.
Sara requires a lot of support to stay on task, especially to
complete her math problems. She does better when she is
provided a number-line or calculator. Otherwise, Sara is happy,
and seems eager to please her teachers by doing her best work.
Long Term Objective
Written for 1 year
Reviewed and revised at the Annual Review
Best guess of how much progress the child can make in one
year’s time

Smart Goal Format
Smart Goal FormatSpecific
What do I want the child to achieve?
MeasurableHow will I know they have achieved it?AttainableIs
the goal attainable? Is it too easy? Is it too hard?RelevantIs it
essential to help the student navigate in a nondisabled world?
Is it meaningful to the student?
Time BoundWhat is the timeline for achieving the goal?
What are the benchmarks along the way that will show we are
making progress?
Three short Term objectives:
Breaks the goal into smaller units for attainment.
Objective: Evaluation Criteria
_____ % Accuracy
__/___ # of Attempts
_____ OtherEvaluation Procedures
___ Observation Log
___Data Charts
___Tests
___OtherSchedule for Determining Progress
___Daily
___Weekly
___Quarterly
___Semester
___OtherDates Reviewed/Extent of Progress (optional)
Short Term Objectives
Roadmap to meeting the long term goal
Breaks the skills down into smaller, measureable parts or

benchmarks
Describes levels of increasing performance
Increases in scoring like CBMs
Decreases the amount and type of assistance that may be
needed
Increases the complexity of the task
Example of a Long term goal: Student will improve oral
reading fluency as measured on CBM increasing scores to the
35th percentile by the end of the year.
By the end of Quarter 1 the student will perform at the 20th
percentile as measured on the CBM assessment for Oral
Reading Fluency.
By the end of Quarter 2 the student will perform at the 25th
Reading Fluency.
By the end of Quarter 3 the student will perform on at the 30th
Reading Fluency.
Decreasing levels of assistance needed
to achieve the goal
Example based on grade level curriculum
Complexity of the task
Long Term goal: Student will write a 3 paragraph essay using
graphic organizers as measured through a classroom
Assignment rubric with 70% accuracy by May 31, 2021.

STO #1: Student will use a graphic organizer to outline notes
and ideas to be included in the introduction, Body and
concluding paragraph with 90% accuracy as measured .
STO #2: Student will create an introductor y and concluding
paragraph using a graphic organizer for paragraphs of 3 to 4
sentences as measured on the classroom assignment rubric
with 80% accuracy.
STO#2: Student will write the body of the essay using a
graphic organizer to identify 3 main ideas and writing 2
sentences for each idea as measured on the classroom rubric
with 75% accuracy.
High-Leverage Practices and Evidence-Based Practices: A
Promising Pair1
High-Leverage Practices and Evidence-Based Practices:
A Promising Pair
Erica D. McCray, Margaret Kamman, Mary T. Brownell
University of Florida
Suzanne Robinson
University of Kansas
High-leverage practices (HLPs) and evidence-based practices
(EBPs) when used together can
become powerful tools for improving student outcomes. This
brief is designed to show the promise
of these practices in advancing educator preparation and
practice and, subsequently, outcomes for

students with disabilities and those who struggle. We begin by
defining HLPs and EBPs and sharing
examples of how educator preparation programs are integrating
them in their candidates’ learning
opportunities and conclude with an illustration of how they can
be seamlessly integrated into
instruction provided as part of multi-tiered systems of support
(MTSS).
High-Leverage Practices:
What Are They and Why Are They Important?
Educator preparation programs have come under sharp criticism
in recent years for failing to
demonstrate the impact of their graduates on the achievement of
their students. Teachers and
leaders are key to improving outcomes of students with
disabilities. Preparation experiences must
include well-supervised opportunities for candidates to practice
with feedback about what they are
learning in coursework. Field placements should be carefully
selected to reinforce what candidates
have learned in coursework. To move in the direction of tightly
structured learning opportunities
for teacher candidates, scholars in general and special education
(Ball & Forzani, 2011; McLeskey
& Brownell, 2015) have argued that teacher educators need to
identify a critical set of practices
that are essential to improving student learning and behavior
and can be learned in coursework,
deliberately practiced in field experiences carefully structured
by faculty (e.g., tutoring small groups
of students in identified practices), and generalized to more
loosely structured field experiences.
These critical practices, also known HLPs, should be those that
research has demonstrated can

impact student achievement and be used across different content
areas and grade levels. These
HLPs should also be those that teacher candidates can learn
through practice and feedback. They
would form a “common core of professional knowledge and
skill that can be taught to aspiring
teachers across all types of programs and pathways” (Ball &
Forzani, 2011, p. 19). HLPs can provide
infrastructure to support effective teaching and consistent
learning for every student to succeed.
CEEDAR
C E N T E R
October 2017
Promising Pair2
Specialized Practices
To extend the HLPs that Deborah Ball and her colleagues
developed for special education, the
CEEDAR Center, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC),
and the Teacher Education Division
of CEC supported a group of experts to generate HLPs for
special education teachers in grades
K-12. This High-Leverage Practices Writing Team developed
HLPs in four domains: (a) collaboration,
(b) assessment, (c) social/emotional and behavioral support, and
(d) instruction (see below). The
identified HLPs were supported by research on student learning
or policy/legal foundations in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

HLPs for Special Education
Collaboration
�� Collaborate with professionals to increase student success
�� Organize and facilitate effective meetings with
professionals and families
�� Collaborate with families to support student learning and
secure needed services
Assessment
�� Use multiple sources of information to develop a
comprehensive understanding of a student’s
strengths and needs
�� Interpret and communicate assessment information with
stakeholders to collaboratively design
and implement educational programs
�� Use student assessment, analyze instructional practices, and
make necessary adjustments that
improve student outcomes
Social/Emotional and Behavioral Support
�� Establish a consistent, organized, and
respectful learning environment
�� Provide positive and constructive feedback to
guide students’ learning and behavior
�� Teach social behaviors
�� Conduct functional behavioral assessments to
develop individual student behavior support
plans
Instruction
�� Identify and prioritize long- and short-term
learning goals
�� Systematically design instruction toward a
specific goal
�� Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for
specific learning goals

�� Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies
to support learning and independence
�� Provide scaffolded supports
Resources: Practice-Based Opportunities
and High-Leverage Practices in General and
Special Education
Practice-Based Opportunities Brief: outlines
essential features for providing high-quality,
structured, and sequenced opportunities to
practice within teacher preparation programs.
CEEDAR HLP Review: identifies the need to
identify high-leverage practices unique to special
education.
High-Leverage Practices: describes high-leverage
practices for general education.
High-Leverage Practices in Special Education:
outlines high leverage practices in special
education.
Promising Pair3
�� Use explicit instruction
�� Use flexible grouping
�� Use strategies to promote active student engagement
�� Use assistive and instructional technologies
�� Provide intensive instruction
�� Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning
across time and settings

�� Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide
students’ learning and behavior
McLeskey and Brownell (2015) noted that (a) many of the
general HLPs are appropriate for all
teachers, and (b) many of the HLPs identified for special
education vary only in intensity and focus.
Table 1 illustrates commonalities and distinctions across the
two sets of HLPs. Understanding the
increasingly intensified practices needed as special and general
education teachers teach students
with disabilities is important.
Table 1. Commonalities and Distinctions Across HLPs
High-Leverage Practices (from Teaching Works) High-Leverage
Practices in Special Education
Explaining and modeling content, practices, and
strategies
�� Use explicit instruction
�� Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to
support learning and independence
Diagnosing particular common patterns of student
thinking and development in a subject-matter domain
�� Systematically design instruction toward a specific
learning goal
�� Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific
learning goals
Coordinating and adjusting instruction during a lesson ��

Scaffold instruction
Setting up and managing small-group work �� Use flexible
grouping
�� Use strategies to promote active student
engagement
Specifying and reinforcing productive student behavior ��
Provide positive and constructive feedback to guide
students’ learning and behavior
Evidence-Based Practices:
What Are They and Why Are They Important?
EBPs for special education are instructional strategies backed
by research and professional
expertise to support the learning and behavior of students with
disabilities (Cook, Tankersley, &
Harjusola-Webb, 2008). EBPs are often content focused and
appropriate for students at different
developmental levels. For instance, teaching students strategies
for summarizing text is a powerful
strategy, but the strategy is best taught in third grade and
beyond.
At the CEEDAR Center, experts have identified the evidence in
specific content areas (e.g., reading,
writing, mathematics, behavior). These EBPs are described in
innovation configurations (ICs)
available on the CEEDAR Center’s website. Faculty can use
these ICs to determine the extent to
which their programs are providing teacher candidates
opportunities to learn and practice the most
critical EBPs—some of which are also considered HLPs.

Promising Pair4
HLPs and EBPs: A Promising Pair
Many states and districts are implementing MTSS to increase
the success of all students. MTSS is a
framework for instruction that focuses on prevention and
intervention. All students receive evidence-
based instruction in core (or Tier 1) curriculum and increasingly
specialized instruction (Tier 2) with
intensive and individualized intervention (Tier 3) as needed (see
Figure 1). HLPs and EBPs are ideal
complementary practices for implementing MTSS. HLPs can be
used to teach EBPs in specific
content areas.
Multi-Tiered Prevention System
Universal
Targeted
Intensive
HLPs/EBPs to deliver
core instruction
supplemental/targeted instruction
individualized instruction
Focus: All students
Instruction: District curriculum and instructional practices that

are
evidence-based, align with state or district standards, and
incorporate
differentiated instruction
Setting: General education classroom
Assessments: Screening, continual progress monitoring, and
outcome
measures
Focus: Students identified (through screening) as at risk for
poor learning
outcome
Instruction: Targeted, supplemental instruction delivered to
small groups.
Setting: General education classroom or other general education
location
within the school
Assessments: Progress monitoring, diagnostic
Focus: Students who have not responded to universal or targeted
instruction
Instruction: Intensive, supplemental instruction delivered to
small groups or
individually
Setting: General education classroom or other general education
location
within the school
Assessments: Progress monitoring, diagnostic
Grand Valley State University (Michigan) Example
Grand Valley State University (GVSU) in Michigan has been
working to embed HLPs for general
and special education into their educator preparation programs.
The faculty believe that all
beginning teachers should be prepared to teach all learners on
day one. This initiative addresses

an educator equity issue—all children deserve a skilled teacher.
Historically, districts and
universities speak about instruction in vague terms. HLPs
provide precision and focus to teaching
and the expectations for teachers. GVSU just completed its fi rst
year of a professional learning
community (PLC), which included their faculty and field
coordinators and cooperating teachers and
teacher leaders from the partnering district. The group
collaborated to accomplish several goals.
First, they analyzed the HLPs in general and special education
to unpack the terms and practices.
Then, the group tackled the pedagogy of teaching HLPs to
teacher candidates and beginning
teachers. The PLC developed common language and
understanding, which was lacking prior to
establishing the PLC. The PLC provided a structure for agreeing
on and institutionalizing HLPs for
teacher candidates and beginning teachers and streamlining
their roles as teacher educators at the
pre- and in-service levels.
*Figure adapted from www.rti4success.org
Promising Pair5
Figure 1. Multi-Level Prevention System
A Case Example: How to Integrate HLPs and EBPs
The following case example illustrates reading instruction using
HLPs (see bold text below) and
EBPs (see italicized, underlined text below) for Reading K-5
(Lane, 2014) and Writing Instruction

(Troia, 2014) across tiers. Specific examples are included
below:
High-Leverage Practices
�� Teach cognitive and metacognitive
strategies (HLP14)
�� Scaffold supports (HLP15)
�� Use instructional technology (HLP19)
�� Use active student engagement (HLP18)
�� Use flexible grouping (HLP17)
�� Provide positive feedback (HLP22)
�� Provide explicit instruction (HLP16)
�� Provide intensive instruction (HLP20)
�� Adapt curriculum tasks (HLP13)
Evidence-Based Practices
�� Provide vocabulary instruction (RP6.6)
�� Teach making inferences (RP7.5)
�� Teach modeling (RP7.6)
�� Teach paraphrasing (RP7.3)
�� Teach process: Outlining (W2.1)
Tier 1: Universal
A third-grade teacher, Ms. Lexicon, has planned a lesson to
provide opportunities to practice
writing skills with a complementary focus on expanding
students’ use of sophisticated vocabulary
words. The lesson begins with Ms. L reading a passage to the
class while displaying the text on
the Smartboard. First, Ms. L uses explicit instruction and Text
Talk (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013),
an evidence-based strategy, to help students understand what a
vivid verb is and why it is important
to use when writing. Students are then prompted to look and
listen for vivid verbs as she reads. After
Ms. L completes the passage, she asks students to identify the

vivid verbs and infer meaning. As
the class discusses the sophisticated words, Ms. L asks them to
think about how they might use
those words, making linkages to familiar words, in their own
stories later in the day.
Tier 2: Supplementary
Ms. Lexicon has identified a group of students who need
targeted supplemental instruction. Ms. L
uses flexible grouping to model thinking about a vivid
vocabulary word. First, Ms. L and the group
chorally read a portion of the text. Then, Ms. L focuses the
students on one word: “blurting.” She
allows for active student engagement by pausing and asking
students what they think it means
when a word is blurted out. As students provide answers, Ms. L
provides positive feedback. After
students tell what blurting means, Ms. L states explicitly that if
the author used the word “said”
instead of “blurting,” the reader could not visualize the
interruption. She then tasks the group to
practice locating vivid vocabulary by independently reading the
remainder of the text and identifying
vivid vocabulary, just as they did as a group.
Tier 3: Intensive
Ms. Lexicon was certain that one of her Tier 3 students, Adam,
would need more intensive
Promising Pair6
support beyond the small-group instruction. When she dismissed
the group to continue reading

independently, she asked Adam to stay with her for more
explicit instruction. Ms. L provided more
modeling by reading the passage aloud to Adam. Then, she
segmented the passage into shorter
chunks for Adam to read to her. Ms. L had Adam summarize the
segments in his own words and
write down his ideas and vocabulary words. This intentional
discussion ensured Adam had an outline
prepared for the writing assignment later in the day.
As the case example demonstrates, the coupling of HLPs and
EBPs can be powerful when providing
increasingly intensive instruction and intervention for students
with disabilities and those who
struggle. Using these practices for effectively implementing
MTSS has the potential to transform
teaching and learning to ensure that every student succeeds.
To improve outcomes for students with disabilities and those
who struggle, teachers must be
equipped with knowledge and skill that they can consistently
use to meet the variety of needs that
their students present. HLPs and EBPs show great promise when
implemented well and can be a
solid foundation for educator preparation programming in
general and special education.
Questions about CEEDAR tools and resources? Please contact
the CEEDAR Center at
http://www.ceedar.org
References
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011, Summer). Building a
common core for learning to teach and connecting professional
learning to practice. American Educator, 17-21, 38-39.

Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words
to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Cook, B. G., Tankersely, M., & Harjusola-Webb, S. (2008).
Evidence-based special education and professional wisdom:
Putting it all together. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2),
105-111.
Lane, H. (2014). Evidence-based reading instruction for grades
K-5 (Document No. IC-12). Retrieved from University of
Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development,
Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.
education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/
McLeskey, J., & Brownell, M. (2015). High-leverage practices
and teacher preparation in special education (Document
No. PR-1). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration
for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and
Reform Center website:
http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/best-practice-review/
Troia, G. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing
instruction (Document No. IC-5). Retrieved from University of
Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development,
Accountability, and Reform Center website:
http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration/
This content was produced under U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs, Award No.
H325A120003. Bonnie Jones and David Guardino serve as the
project officers. The views expressed herein do not
necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S.
Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S.
Department of Education of any product, commodi ty, service, or
enterprise mentioned in this content is intended or should

RtI/MTSS Progress Monitoring and Data-Driven Decisions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to RtI/MTSS Progress Monitoring and Data-Driven Decisions

Similar to RtI/MTSS Progress Monitoring and Data-Driven Decisions (20)

More from VannaJoy20

More from VannaJoy20 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

RtI/MTSS Progress Monitoring and Data-Driven Decisions