1 Utilizing a District Fidelity Review Team to Ensure Appropriate Referrals Dr. Laura W. Simmons, Special Population Coordinator McKinney ISD Special Populations Department 510 Heard Street McKinney, TX 75069 469-742-6329 [email protected]
Feb 23, 2016
Utilizing a District Fidelity Review Team to Ensure Appropriate Referrals
Dr Laura W Simmons Special Population CoordinatorMcKinney ISD
Special Populations Department510 Heard Street
McKinney TX 75069469-742-6329
lsimmonsmckinneyisdnet
Background
McKinney ISD is a suburban school district with a population of 22000 students
Approximately 85 of these students meet criteria for Special education
4 Years ago our school district began to implement an Rti framework with students referred for LD and OHI special education assessment once Tier 3 supports were documented and found not to meet the studentrsquos needs
Background Continued As we grew as a district with our Rti process it became evident that
some type of district-wide fidelity process was needed especially due to the number of LD amp OHI referrals that continued to be recommended by campus Rti teams that often resulted in the student not qualifying for LD andor OHI
Variations across campuses was quite evident as to what constituted a ldquogood referralrdquo
In the meantime our district adopted a hybrid problem-solving approach which included the continuation of a campus student support team for our Tier 3 process Additionally there were elements of protocol-prescribed interventions build into the Tier plan as well
Why Pursue a District Fidelity Review Process
We considered many avenues but wanted a process that could qualitatively conceptualize these elements
What did seem most feasible was a process in which a district-level team would look closely at each FIE referral made on the campus level prior to consent being obtained utilizing key indicators to engage conversation
Thus the advent of the MISD District Fidelity Review Team The next step was to establish a protocol for conducting the District
Fidelity Review team
Having a consistent and detailed measure of fidelity of implementationsupports the efficacy of an Rti model --D Mellard amp E Johnson Rti A Practionerrsquos Guide to Implementing
Response to Intervention 2008 Corwin Press
Development of the MISD DFR Process
We chose to utilize a standard review process that included a specific documentation form used for all students reviewed by the team
We looked at various modelshellipwe werenrsquot quite ready as a district to pursue more formal fidelity checks district wide but found at least one guiding document that had key ideas that would apply to our needs New Mexico Public Education Department Response to
Intervention A Systematic Process to Increase Learning Outcomes for All Students (featured in The Answer Book on Rti ldquoRti Fideltiy Review Checklistrdquo c 2007 LRP Publications)
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
Our next step was deciding upon the key elements that would need to be considered Evidence of scientifically-based interventions Fidelity of interventions Progress Monitoring Data Consideration of Exclusionary Factors Consideration of Determinant Factors Additional Recommendations or Actions such as
including two prong consideration
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each studenthellip
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Background
McKinney ISD is a suburban school district with a population of 22000 students
Approximately 85 of these students meet criteria for Special education
4 Years ago our school district began to implement an Rti framework with students referred for LD and OHI special education assessment once Tier 3 supports were documented and found not to meet the studentrsquos needs
Background Continued As we grew as a district with our Rti process it became evident that
some type of district-wide fidelity process was needed especially due to the number of LD amp OHI referrals that continued to be recommended by campus Rti teams that often resulted in the student not qualifying for LD andor OHI
Variations across campuses was quite evident as to what constituted a ldquogood referralrdquo
In the meantime our district adopted a hybrid problem-solving approach which included the continuation of a campus student support team for our Tier 3 process Additionally there were elements of protocol-prescribed interventions build into the Tier plan as well
Why Pursue a District Fidelity Review Process
We considered many avenues but wanted a process that could qualitatively conceptualize these elements
What did seem most feasible was a process in which a district-level team would look closely at each FIE referral made on the campus level prior to consent being obtained utilizing key indicators to engage conversation
Thus the advent of the MISD District Fidelity Review Team The next step was to establish a protocol for conducting the District
Fidelity Review team
Having a consistent and detailed measure of fidelity of implementationsupports the efficacy of an Rti model --D Mellard amp E Johnson Rti A Practionerrsquos Guide to Implementing
Response to Intervention 2008 Corwin Press
Development of the MISD DFR Process
We chose to utilize a standard review process that included a specific documentation form used for all students reviewed by the team
We looked at various modelshellipwe werenrsquot quite ready as a district to pursue more formal fidelity checks district wide but found at least one guiding document that had key ideas that would apply to our needs New Mexico Public Education Department Response to
Intervention A Systematic Process to Increase Learning Outcomes for All Students (featured in The Answer Book on Rti ldquoRti Fideltiy Review Checklistrdquo c 2007 LRP Publications)
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
Our next step was deciding upon the key elements that would need to be considered Evidence of scientifically-based interventions Fidelity of interventions Progress Monitoring Data Consideration of Exclusionary Factors Consideration of Determinant Factors Additional Recommendations or Actions such as
including two prong consideration
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each studenthellip
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Background Continued As we grew as a district with our Rti process it became evident that
some type of district-wide fidelity process was needed especially due to the number of LD amp OHI referrals that continued to be recommended by campus Rti teams that often resulted in the student not qualifying for LD andor OHI
Variations across campuses was quite evident as to what constituted a ldquogood referralrdquo
In the meantime our district adopted a hybrid problem-solving approach which included the continuation of a campus student support team for our Tier 3 process Additionally there were elements of protocol-prescribed interventions build into the Tier plan as well
Why Pursue a District Fidelity Review Process
We considered many avenues but wanted a process that could qualitatively conceptualize these elements
What did seem most feasible was a process in which a district-level team would look closely at each FIE referral made on the campus level prior to consent being obtained utilizing key indicators to engage conversation
Thus the advent of the MISD District Fidelity Review Team The next step was to establish a protocol for conducting the District
Fidelity Review team
Having a consistent and detailed measure of fidelity of implementationsupports the efficacy of an Rti model --D Mellard amp E Johnson Rti A Practionerrsquos Guide to Implementing
Response to Intervention 2008 Corwin Press
Development of the MISD DFR Process
We chose to utilize a standard review process that included a specific documentation form used for all students reviewed by the team
We looked at various modelshellipwe werenrsquot quite ready as a district to pursue more formal fidelity checks district wide but found at least one guiding document that had key ideas that would apply to our needs New Mexico Public Education Department Response to
Intervention A Systematic Process to Increase Learning Outcomes for All Students (featured in The Answer Book on Rti ldquoRti Fideltiy Review Checklistrdquo c 2007 LRP Publications)
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
Our next step was deciding upon the key elements that would need to be considered Evidence of scientifically-based interventions Fidelity of interventions Progress Monitoring Data Consideration of Exclusionary Factors Consideration of Determinant Factors Additional Recommendations or Actions such as
including two prong consideration
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each studenthellip
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Why Pursue a District Fidelity Review Process
We considered many avenues but wanted a process that could qualitatively conceptualize these elements
What did seem most feasible was a process in which a district-level team would look closely at each FIE referral made on the campus level prior to consent being obtained utilizing key indicators to engage conversation
Thus the advent of the MISD District Fidelity Review Team The next step was to establish a protocol for conducting the District
Fidelity Review team
Having a consistent and detailed measure of fidelity of implementationsupports the efficacy of an Rti model --D Mellard amp E Johnson Rti A Practionerrsquos Guide to Implementing
Response to Intervention 2008 Corwin Press
Development of the MISD DFR Process
We chose to utilize a standard review process that included a specific documentation form used for all students reviewed by the team
We looked at various modelshellipwe werenrsquot quite ready as a district to pursue more formal fidelity checks district wide but found at least one guiding document that had key ideas that would apply to our needs New Mexico Public Education Department Response to
Intervention A Systematic Process to Increase Learning Outcomes for All Students (featured in The Answer Book on Rti ldquoRti Fideltiy Review Checklistrdquo c 2007 LRP Publications)
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
Our next step was deciding upon the key elements that would need to be considered Evidence of scientifically-based interventions Fidelity of interventions Progress Monitoring Data Consideration of Exclusionary Factors Consideration of Determinant Factors Additional Recommendations or Actions such as
including two prong consideration
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each studenthellip
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Development of the MISD DFR Process
We chose to utilize a standard review process that included a specific documentation form used for all students reviewed by the team
We looked at various modelshellipwe werenrsquot quite ready as a district to pursue more formal fidelity checks district wide but found at least one guiding document that had key ideas that would apply to our needs New Mexico Public Education Department Response to
Intervention A Systematic Process to Increase Learning Outcomes for All Students (featured in The Answer Book on Rti ldquoRti Fideltiy Review Checklistrdquo c 2007 LRP Publications)
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
Our next step was deciding upon the key elements that would need to be considered Evidence of scientifically-based interventions Fidelity of interventions Progress Monitoring Data Consideration of Exclusionary Factors Consideration of Determinant Factors Additional Recommendations or Actions such as
including two prong consideration
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each studenthellip
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
Our next step was deciding upon the key elements that would need to be considered Evidence of scientifically-based interventions Fidelity of interventions Progress Monitoring Data Consideration of Exclusionary Factors Consideration of Determinant Factors Additional Recommendations or Actions such as
including two prong consideration
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each studenthellip
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued
We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each studenthellip
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
LEPELL Yes No
Initial Referral
Yes No Suspected Disability
Review of Tier 3Also-see attached written summary of screening data and educational history provided by the campus
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Evidence-based Interventions The student has received evidence-based small-group instruction for at least 6-8 weeks andor appropriate PBS planNotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Fidelity of intervention The intervention(s) was (were) implemented with fidelity for this student (including core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies)Notes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Progress Monitoring Data Weekly curriculum-based measuresprogress monitoring measures were implemented for at least 6-8 weeks Data from CBMsPGMs are consistent with the area(s) of concern established by the campus RTINotes
1048710 Yes 1048710 No
Data-Based Decision Making The studentrsquos individualized or small-group interventions were reviewed revised andor discontinued based on student performance and progress after 6-8 week intervalsNotes
District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Evidence of scientifically-based interventions
In our district we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns
We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 11 interventions
For Example If a studentrsquos referral concern is basic word decoding most of these students would receive the following deep intervention Earobics
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Fidelity of interventions
The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered
The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum extensions supplemental curriculum and strategies
This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculummdashwhat every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Progress Monitoring Data
Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern
We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring
Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the studentrsquos referral concerns
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Data-based Decision Making Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is
maintained and adjusted as needed for the students Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews
these students especially those on Tier 3 Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data
should be utilized to adjust programming as needed
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Consideration of Exclusionary Factors
bullDoes the student have a visual hearing or motor disabilitybullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardationbullDoes the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional DisturbancebullDoes the student have cultural factors of interestbullDoes the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interestbullIs the student considered Limited English ProficiencybullHas the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
bullDid the student make any progress with use of interventions bullDid the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time
Consideration of Determinant Factors
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
District Rti Fidelity Review Committeersquos Recommendations Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for
Referral for FIE for LDOHI or other Tried to list very specific referral concern
Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions
At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Studenthelliphellip
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Challenges Encountered This Yearhellip
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation
on the district team Initially we started off with a small team that included
five Rti specialist the district Rti coordinator and representatives from the evaluation team
Mid-year we added representation from campus leadership instructional specialist central office curriculum leadership and BilingualESL leadership to the teams
Challenge 1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Challenge 2mdashNeeded More Teams to Share the Wealth As additional key members were added to the
committee we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students and one secondary team
Teams each included a campus administrator as well as central office leadership including CampI and BilingualESL
The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Challenge 3mdashAdequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed
One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper and not considering the whole child
We never intended to be a closed committee so this was an easy fixmdashwe asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Challenge 4mdashTime Management
There was always lots to talk about but never enough time
A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student
Information included the following referral concerns educational history interventions attempted and progress monitoring data
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Challenge 5 Training
Additionally the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction
The example of J Walshrsquos Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
4 Quatrant Analysis (J Walsh)
Quadrant 4 These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the studentrsquos educational performance
VersusQuadrant 3 These students need specially designed
instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairmentmdashLEP and WBFWR
--This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 amp 3 support more readily before considering a referral
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
Added Value Gained to the District Rti Processhellip Increased collaboration with special education
staff and general education staff Conversations that are vital to our growth for the
Rti process Considerations to the Rti process such as ldquoWhat
really is Tier 1hellipTier 2hellipTier 3 in MISD
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
24
Added Value Gained to the District Rti ProcesshellipThe Stats Over 140 students have been discussed this
school year by our DFR committees 115 + students were referred for an FIE The others were referred back to their
campus Rti teams for specific recommendations including possible general ed dyslexia testing
DNQ rate is pending
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process
25
Our Next Step
Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level
Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level thus enabling campuses ownership of the process