Bridget Golden Sped 441: Data-Based Decision Making Assignment Spring 2013 In my classroom, progress monitoring is completed with

the implementation of Aimsweb assessments. The assessment occurs every two weeks in the classroom and is implemented by either my teacher or the two paraprofessionals. I have also been able to take part in assessing my students with Aimsweb this semester. In the beginning of the school year, my teacher implemented an initial Aimsweb assessment for both reading and math to get an idea of what performance levels the students were starting the new school year with. Her instructional planning was built off of these initial progress-monitoring scores. On the Aimsweb reading assessment, my entire class of eight students struggled greatly with letter naming as shown on the Letter Naming Fluency test. After assessing this data combined with the results of the Oral Reading Fluency Aimsweb scores, my teacher realized that she had to start her instruction with basic lessons of letter names and their corresponding sounds. Her goal was that by teaching this material, the students would be improving their literacy skills while simultaneously improving their Aimweb progress-monitoring scores. Therefore, my teacher began letter instruction with the Letter People curriculum that focuses on letter names and sounds in a fun and engaging manner. The students understanding of the content has been consistently increasing as seen on both tests within the curriculum and the scores on the Aimsweb Letter Naming Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency assessments. As for the subject of math, my cooperating teacher not only implements Aimsweb assessments, but also uses Rocket Math assessments in order to gauge her mathematics instruction. Rocket Math is a program that is designed to improve mastery of basic math facts. In the beginning of the year, the students are given an initial Level 1 assessment. The total

number of correct/incorrect facts is counted after each probe is taken and the students are only able to move on to the next level based on the number of answers correct (previously determined by their individual IEP goals). The goals range from 5 correct math problems to 15 correct math problems based on each students skill level. These probes are given to the students every morning. My teacher uses the scores of these assessments to create lessons and worksheets geared to varying levels of mathematics understanding. For example, one student is working on an adapted level of his grade level third grade math curriculum, whereas other students are working on kindergarten level math and varying levels in between. These decisions about what to focus instruction on and how to differentiate come directly from scores on these progressmonitoring assessments. While I think that both of the curriculum-based measures practiced in my classroom gear my teachers differentiated instruction, I do think that these measures differ from an RTI framework model. RTI is a responsive approach that general education teachers take when instructing students. It separates students who are able to master general grade level material (Tier 1) from those who need a little more support (Tier 2) and a greater amount of support (Tier 3). A general education teacher should be implementing RTI strategies for students depending on what tier the students qualify for. Students are not forced to stay in one particular tier forever; it just depends on how well they are improving with more/less supports during instruction. However, my classroom is a Special Education self-contained second and third grade classroom that the school does not consider a setting for which RTI procedures take place. They claim that this classroom does not fit into a category within the RTI framework model because it has been previously determined that the students qualify for this type of special instruction which is more in depth than a Tier 3 intervention approach. Although my teacher believes in inclusion and RTI

facilitates inclusion, she feels that the students in my classroom are better suited in her selfcontained setting because of the more individualized nature of instruction. However, if these Aimsweb and Rocket Math curriculum-based measures were implemented in a general education setting, I think that they would be great examples of assessments within the RTI framework for identifying at-risk students. Once the students had been identified, teachers could determine the appropriate level/tier for intervention strategies in order to improve students understanding of the content and performance on the progress monitoring assessments. For example, with Rocket Math, if a students scores show that he may need further supports, he may be moved into the Tier 2 instructional model where interventions such as Touch Math could be taught in order to improve his understanding of mathematics and scores on progress monitoring. Once this skill has been mastered, they are capable of returning back to the Tier 1 general education level of instruction. One thing I would like to change about the data-based decisions my school makes is their outlook on Special Education being separate from the RTI framework. I think that the school needs to understand that RTI is not a place, it is a type of instruction/intervention/support. Although I understand that many students who qualify for Special Education may not ever be included within the general education setting, I still think it is more appropriate to consider Special Education as a Tier 3 level of intervention because it is the setting where the utmost level of direct instruction/intervention/support should be occurring. Every student (with and without disabilities) should be considered a general education student first. Some of these students may need more intervention such as Tier 2 intervention, and some may need Tier 3. I could be wrong, but I think of Special Education as Tier 3 because I believe that these students deserve the chance to possibly be included back in Tier 2 instruction or the general education Tier 1 setting

as much as possible. Sure, for a while students could be considered a Tier 3 student, but with steady improvement, I believe they could return to Tier 2 or Tier 1 settings. All general education teachers should be differentiating their curriculum for students of all types of learning needs anyways, so considering Special Education as a setting completely not associated with the RTI framework does not give students with Tier 3 needs the possibility of returning back to levels of less intervention and support, even when they may qualify for less supports someday.