Universal Design for Learning & Differentiated Instruction · ine progress-monitoring data in order to determine if academic improvement has occurred. If improvement has not occurred,

Universal Design for Learning & Differentiated Instruction

A Collaborative PlanningFramework for TeachersImplementing TieredInstruction

Shannon K. Stuart and Claudia Rinaldi

The recent reauthorization and regulations of theIndividuals With Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act (IDEA 2004) encourage the use of school-wide interventions including response to interven-tion (RTI; Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007).RTI refers to a multi tiered system ihat addressesthe academic needs of all students by using evi-dence-based instructional practice, progress moni-toring, and data-informed instructional problemsolving (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Rinaldi & Samson,2008), A tiered system is an educational model thatdelineates three or more levels of instructionalinterventions based on gaps in student skills. A tieris a level in an RTI system thai includes interven-tions and supports for a clearly defined group ofstudents. RT! is highly encouraged as it ensureshigh-quality instruclion and universal screening ofall children, addresses the needs of strugglinglearners by providing interventions at increasinglevels of intensity, and significantly decreases thenumber of inappropriate referrals to special educa-tion (Vaughn & Ortiz, 2008), As a result, a signifi-cant number of public schools in the United Statesare in the planning and implementation stages ofthis initiative.

In this article, we present a collaborative plan-ning framework for educators implementing RTI.The framework addresses how educators can useuniversal screening and progress tiionitoring datato plan for instruction al all tiers as well as evalu-ate the responsiveness of interventions provided atthe Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels within the RTI model.The results are a feasible support system by whicheducators can improve service delivery lo all slu-

52 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHII-DREN

dents, including those identified asKnglish Language Learners (ELLs).Using the recommendations by Fuchs,Mock, Morgan, and Young (200.̂ );Marry and Klingner (2006); and theregulations of IDEA 2004, we devel-opoil the Collahorative InstructionalPlanning anil Intervention framework(see Figure 1).

Collaborative PlanningFramework

This framework is an effective way toensure that educators can deliver Tier1 ser\'ices, defined as core instruction.through evidence-based instructional[iractices that all students can access. Italso ensures that students who receiveTier 2 and Tier 3 services receive smallgroup instruction in areas of academicdifficulty, in addition to Tier 1 instruc-tion. Finally, it guarantees that studentswho receive Tier 3 services also receiveinstructional support, delivered one-to-one, in order to meet specific needs inaddition to Tier i and Tier 2 instruc-tion.

Figure 1 . Collabercrtlve Instructional Monnlng and Intervention

Collaborative and InstructionalPlanning and Intervention

Planning Execution Feedback

DIFFERENTIATED

INSTRUCTION

FeedbscK

Feedback Cycles:

1. Improve and tune mcasurcmeni lools

2. Identify and Implement Instruction ImpravemenU

3. Adjust and relocus strategies and goals

the risk level ol .siULli'nt.s aiul pLu'cthem into tiers using data gatheredfrom a universal screening process.Using the recommendations hy theNational Reading Panel in Reading

This iramework is an effective way to ensure that educatorscan deliver Tier 1 services, defined as core instruction, through

evidence-based instructional practices that all students can access.

The framework Is composed ofthree main phases: Planning, Execu-lion, and Feedback [see Figure 1).

Instructional Planning

The first phase of this framework isInstructional Planning. In the Instruc-ilonai Planning phase, grade levelteams develop a collaborative supportteam that functions as a support sys-tem for potential instructional prohlemsolving. We recommend that schoolsimplementing an RTI structure provideadditional pl.iiuiing time for gradelevel teachers and a specialist (e.g.,special education teacher) to addressthe components of the model effective-ly. During these meetings, educatorsform grade level teams and adopt theuse of an RTI protocol (see Figure 2).Using this protocol, teams determine

Instruction, the grade level team iden-tifies specific areas of difficulty inreading [e.g., phonemic awareness,decoding, fluency, vocabulary, compre-hension). This process provides aclasswide view of the risk level of theclassroom. It also provides guidancefor instructional prohlem solving andprogress monitoring for students inTier 2 and Tier 3.

During this Planning phase, gradelevel teams need to consider wherethey can find evidence-based interven-tions that support the core readinginstruction. One source is the WhatWorks Clearinghouse [U.S. Departmentof Education Institute of EducationSciences, 2008), a Web site offering arange of publications that evaluatebeginning reading interventions andinstructional strategies in order to

[¡iciea.se skills in reading fluency, com-prehension, and general readingachievement.

Educators must evaluate ihe cur-riculum, consider how it ensures ihatall students have optimal learningopportunities (Haager & Klingner,2005), and how it provides universalaccess so that students meet high-qual-ity, evidence-based academic stan-dards. For example, a teacher may findthat center-based Instruction or stationteaching is effective in providing differ-entiated instruction of the core curricu-lum and Tier 2 small group instruction.Educators must also evaluate instruc-tional delivery systems and feasibleoptions for embedding schoolresources such as materials, availabilityof suppon personnel, and professionaldevelopment in strategic instruction aspart of the RTI model. Finally, thegrade level teams need to identify stu-dents who are at risk for requiringservices in Tier 2 and Tier ,î of the RTIstructure and develop a schedule toreview and monitor each student'sprogress every 4 to 6 weeks.

Execution

The second stage of the CollaborativeInstructional Planning framework isExecution. Execution refers to the iden-tification of the academic difficulty

TEACHING ExcEPTiONAt. CHILDREN NOV/DH: 2009 53

Figure 3. Sample of an RTI Classwide Overview and Planning Structure

RTI CLASSWIDE OVERVIEW Grades 2-5Inslmt

using

studen

tinns: Group studenis tiy name in each section

he key to iilentify areas of difficullies for each

I if any (FALL, WllSTfER, SPRING).

Total # of Students:

ELL English Language Leamer

ORF Oral Reading Fluency

Comp Comprehension

SE Socio-Behavioral-Need

V y

co

t

o c\i£ a3

TIER 1—Adequate Progre

fS § Name:

c o Name:^ Name:

UJ

to

P -o

Ü U)

spec

ial E

di

Ref

erra

ls &

TIER 2—At

Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:

ss: Universa

TIER 3—High Risk - Intensive Individual Interventions _Identify Tier 2 and 3 it applicable •

Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:Name:

Special Education Students With IEPName:Name:Name:Name:Name:

ELLÜELLÜELLÜELLÜELLÜHLLQELLÜ

ELLQELLIÜELLOELLÜELLJ

Risk Of Failure; needs additional small group Interv

Classrooms Interventions & Socioer

Name:Name:Name:Name:

ELLJELLÜELLÜELLÜELLÜELLÜELLÜE U QELLÜELLÜ

notional Deve

Name:Name:Name:Name:

ORF JORFÜORFÜORFÜORFÜORFQORF a

ORFJORFÜORFÜORFÜORFÜ

ention

ORF JORFÜORFÜORFÜORFÜORFÜORFÜORF aORFÜORFÜ

opment

CompüComp ÜComp 1JComp üCompüCompüComp ü

Comp üCompüCompüComp 1JComp Ü

Comp JCompüCompüComp JComp JComp JComp üCompQComp üCompü

seüS E Ü

S E Ü

S E Ü

SEÜSEÜS E Ü

SEÜSEÜSEÜSEÜS E Ü

SE JS E Ü

SE JS E Ü

S E Ü

S E Ü

S E Ü

S E Ü

S E Ü

S E Ü

that each student receiving Tier 2 andTier 3 services experience and howeducators collect and review baselinedata collected through the RTI univer-sal screening and progress monitoringprocess (see Figures 3 and 4). Theinformation collected addresses theexecution aspect of this model byestablishing a baseline and goalsthrough selection of an instructionalstrategy during differentiated instruc-tion and a progress monitoring tool.

For example, the grade level teamdiscusses the type of additionalinstruction and differentiation neededthroLigh small group instruction as anadditional exposure to the curriculum.If a student's comprehension scoreswere below grade leve!, the teamwould decide on a specific instruction-al delivery method and execute anadditional small group intervention.

perhaps a second guided-reading expe-rience during the school day. Intensityof the service also needs to be evaluat-ed in relation to the student's progress.The progress is monitored monthly toensure responsiveness to the inlerven-tion for Tier 2 students and weekly forTier 3 students. We recommend use ofa 4-point rule. The 4-point rule statesthat if four consecutive data points fallheiow the goal line, a teaching changeor intervention should be considered(Salvia. Ysseldyke, Ä Bolt, 2010). Onecommon tool used as an indicator formonitoring progress is a general out-come measure, such as the widelyused curriculum-based measurement(CBM). CBM refers to techniques mostoften used to evaluate reading skills,typically oral reading fluency. Whenselecting a CBM. educators must con-sider four characteristics: efficiency oí

time, ease of administration, alignmentto the standards, and integration intothe school day {Salvia. Ysseldyke, &Bolt). Educators can find additionalinformation regarding feasible optionsfor progress monitoring tools by thetechnical review committees of theNational Center for Response toIntervention (http://www.RTI4success.org). If the child is anELL. one must also collect informallanguage proficiency data to monitorprogress in oral language in additionto reading skills.

The Execution phase is vital in anRTI model because it ensures that corereading instruction is carefully devel-oped and supported by all teachers ineach grade level. It also ensures thatthe selected intervention results from adata informed problem-solvingapproach that incorporates best prac-

54 COUNCIL FOR ExcEiTtONAL CHILDREN

Figure 3. Collaborativ« Probiem Solving Sample Form lor Students In Tier 2

TIER 2—RTI-SST - Instructional Analysis Problem-Solving Form GradeStudentName:

E[id of Year

(Innin

Sept.OR!-

F-LL Level

Oct.ORFCornil

ELL Level

Nov.ÜRFCnmp

tO-L Leve!

Dec.ORF-'

t:iX t.ove!

Jan.ORFromp

LIU Level

Tier I& times

per week Teacher

Tier 2& times

per week Teacher Outcome

RespotKiing Ü yes Ü noCcmmenis

Responding Q yes Q noComnienls

Responding Ü yes Q noCommems

Responding Q yes Q noComments

Responding ü yes • nnComments

Responding Q yes Ü noComments

Plan of Action

•

Noie. ORF = Oral Reading Fluency. Comp = Comprehension. ELL = English Language Learner.

tices shared by all members of eachgrade level leam.

Feedback

The lasl phase of the collaborativeinstructional planning and interventioniraniework is Feedback. Feedback refersto the phase where grade level teamsevaluate the effectiveness of the inter-vention. This phase ensures a cycle ofcollaborative probiem solving thatresults in more effective data-informedinstructional planning and interven-tion. First, as educators move from thedifferentiation instructional interven-lioii of the execution phase, they exam-ine progress-monitoring data in orderto determine if academic improvementhas occurred. If improvement has notoccurred, then teams need to adjustone of three areas. Teams should con-sider;

• Does the CBM tool not measure theprogress a student is actually mak-ing in the particular skill?

• Does the intervention selected forinstruction work but needs improve-ment?

• Does the intervention not work anddoes a new intervention need to beselected?

Once the grade level team addressesthese questions, they use the results toguide future maintenance of theinstructional intervention, addition ofan intervention, or interventionchange. Thus, there are three optionsto guide this phase.

]. If the CBM measure is not sensitiveenough to provide detailed informa-tion on the student's progress, thenthe grade level team improves andtunes the measurement tool. Forexample, the team may decide to

monitor every other week at theinstructional level rather than thegrade level to track growth overtime using a more sensitive method.

2. If the type of intervention needsimprovement, the team can evaluatethe composition of the studentgroup if it is delivered in a smallgroup such as those recommendedin Tier 2 interventions, the expertiseof the individual who delivers theintervention, and the time andintensity of the intervention tFuchs,Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008).

3. If the team decides that the instruc-tional strategy is insufficient, theycan adjust and refocus specificstrategies or student goals. Forexample, a first-grade student is atgrade level in letter naming fluency,but cannot make the transition intoreading for the January benchmarkindicator of oral reading tluency.

TEACHING ExcEH-iONAL CHILDREN NOV/DHC 2009 55

Figura 4 . Collaborative Planning Sampie Form for Studonts In Tier 3

TIERstudentName:

Sept.ORFComoEI.L Level _

Oct.ORFCnmpELL Level _

Nov.ORFCompELL Uve! _

Dec.ORFCcinpELI, Level _

Jan.ORPComDELL Level _

Feb.ORFCompEU. Level „

3—RTI-SST - Instructional Analysis Problem-Solving Form

Tier 1& times

per week Teacher

Tier 2 &times

per week Teacher

Tier 3 &times

per week TeacherPushin/oul

Plan ofAction

Grade

Outcome

Respoitding LJ yes ü noConunetils

Respodtiiiig • yes • noComments

Responding • yes CJ noComments

Responding Q yes Q noComments

Rcsponiling Q yes Ü noComments

Responding LJ yes LJ noComments

Note. ORF = Oral Reading Fluency. Comp = Comprehension. ELL = English Language Learner.

The problem may be comprehen-sion rather than decoding. The stu-dent may not have enough back-ground knowledge about the text tocompose meaning {i.e., the studentmay feel that she is reading onenonsensical word after another).Thus, the team may need to adjustthe goal and strategy that focuseson improving decoding rules, butalso address improving the stu-dent's background knowledge ofthe information in the text byadding in small group instruction invocabulary.

Discussion

It is essential to provide educators wilhprofessional development opportunities[such as small group coaching, teacherleadership teams) so that they candevelop instructional supports for RTImodels. Further, Fletcher & Vaughn(2009) discuss the importance of pro-

viding long-term support in order toallow educators to reflect and problemsolve in collaborative groups. For highrisk individuals, our collaborativeinstructional planning and interventionframework is also effective for ELLsbecause it integrates planning, reflec-

serve students identified as academi-cally at risk and ELLs with academicdifficulties. This requires that schoolsadopt professional development andcoaching opportunities in order foreducators trained in various specializa-tions to share skills. When districts are

When districts are able to provide time for incorporating collaborative

planning structures, schools are able to address academic difficulties

regardless of wilh whom or where individual students receive services.

tion, progress monitoring, and teamproblem solving from various disci-plines (e.g., general educator, bilingualeducator, special educator) as the teammoves from the first phase of theframework, planning, through the thirdphase of the framework, feedback.

Further, this framework also sup-ports implementation of schoolwidecollaborative planning structures toaddress the needs of educators who

able to provide thiie for incorporatingcollaborative planning structures,schools are able to address academicdifficulties regardless of with whom orwhere individual students receiveservices.

The collaborative instructional pian-ning and intervention framework canprovide a highly effective and genuineprocess for ensuring general educationcurricula access to all, while address-

56 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILOREN

ing the needs of studems who areacademically at risk. Data surroundingthe efficacy of this framework wereevaluated over a 2-year period (Rinaldi& Stuart, in press) in an urban school.Kducators who implemented the frame-work indicated that it was effectivebecause they were given time to prob-lem soive issues about the implementa-lion of instructional interventions whilehaving a framework to inform Instruc-tion, Specifically, team members feltIhat they were highly effective inaddressing individualized educationprogram goals and in reporting aca-demic progress to their peers in meas-urable ways through graphs and stu-dent work samples. They also appreci-ated receiving direct assistance frompeers to problem solve various effec-tive instructional delivery practices.

This work further supports theneeds educators have as the publicschool population evolves and thenumber of minority students grows.Educators want to address the needsof all students but may need guidanceand coaching in order to address theneeds of a diverse community oflearners.

Conclusion

The Collaborative Instructional Plan-ning and Intervention framework pro-vides guidance for schools andresearchers to assist educators in devel-oping instructional supports andprogress monitoring strategies within.m KTI model. Districts can use theframework to establish professionallearning communities among their edu-cators and establish internal profes-sional development supports throughteacher leadership teams. Data derivedfrom implementing the framework canalso serve as a foundation to meet theRTI regulations of IDEA 2004. Finally.the framework is useful in developingcollaborative systems between preser-vice education programs and schooldistricts by developing a new supervi-sion model that aligns with the newframework of RTI in the schools.

ReferencesBradley. K.. Danielson. L.. & Doolittle, J,

{2007). Responsiveness to intervention:

1997-2007. TEACHING ExceptionalChildren. .î9(5).S-]2.

Fletcher, J. M.. & Vaughn, S, (2009). Re-sponse to intervention: Preventing andremediaiing academic difficulties. ChildDei'elopment Perspectives. .í(l), 30-57.

Fuchs. D.. & Fuchs. L. (2006). itiUoductionto response to inlervention: What, whyand how it is valid? Reading ResearchQuarterly. 4i( l) , 93-99.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L S.. & Vaughn. S.(2008). Response to Interuention: Aframework for reading educators.Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Fuchs. D., Mock. D.. Morgan, P., & Young.C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Interveniion: Definiiions. evidence, andimpiicaiions for the learning disabilitiesconstruct. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice. 1S(3), 157-171.

Haager. D.. & KÜngner. J. K. (2005), Differ-entiated instruction in inclusive class-rooms: The special educator's guide. Bos-ton: Pearson Education.

Harry, B.. & Klingner. J. (2006). Why are somany minority students in special edura-tion? Understanding race and disabilityin schools. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Rinaldi. C . & Samson, J. (2008). Englishlanguage learners and response lo inter-vention: Referral consideration. TEACH-ING Exceptional Children. 40(5). 6-14.

Rinaidi. C . & Stuan, S. (in press). Wholeschooling and response to intervention.International Journal of Whole Schooling.

Salvia. J.. Ysseldyke. J. E.. & Bolt, S. (2010),Assessment in special education andinclasii'e education (llth ed.). Belmont,CA: Wadsworlh Cengage Learning.

U.S. Depariment of Education Institute ofEducation Sciences. (2008). What worksclearinghouse. Retrieved September 4,2009, from http://ies,ed,gov/ncee/wwc/reports/topic,aspx?tid = 01

Vaughn. S.. & Ortiz. A. (2008). l^sponse tointervention in reading for English lan-guage learners. Retrieved June 3. 2008.from hltp://www.RTInetwork,org/Learn/Di versity/ar/Engl ish Language

Shannon K. Stuart (CEC Wl Federation).Associate Professor. Departtnent of SpecialFAucation. University of Wisconsiti-Whitewater Claudia Rinaldi (CEC MAFederation). As.mtant Professor. LynchSchool of Education, Boston College.Massachusettes.

Address correspondence to Shannon Stuan,Departtnent of Special Education, University'of Wisconsin, 800 West Main Street, White-water. Wl 53190 (e-mail: [email protected]).

TEACHING Exceptional Children. Vol. 42,No. 2. 52-57.

Copyright 2009 CEC.

Advanced Professional Certificatein Autism Spectrum DisordersLearn online. Help students with ASD to learn more effectively.

Lesley University's 15-credit online certificateprogram will help you impact learning forstudent5 with ASD in key areas including:

• Communication

• Behavior

• Social skills

• Sensory experiences

• Transition challenges

The specialization is a valuable addition to anylicensure program in education or for anyprofessional working with students with autism.

For more details contact:

Sabina Petrucci | 617.349.8301

[email protected] | wv\Av.lesley.edu/info/asd

LESLEY Let's wake up the world.* School of Education

TEACHING ExcEtTiONAL CHILDREN ' Nov/Di-;c 2009 57