Case Study Responses

The following case studies demonstrate the process for decision-making regarding the tiers of support that students are assigned to. These (and accompanying images) were taken from the case study unit of the IRIS Center's "RtI: Data-Based Decision-Making" course from Vanderbilt University, created by Janice Brown and Kim Skow. The responses and opinions given are my own!

Level B, Case 2: Kateri (age 9, 3rd Grade) 

   This scenario regards Kateri, a student who had been performing poorly in reading for the first six weeks and has received Tier II instruction for ten following weeks. The support team at her elementary school is meeting to evaluate her progress and to determine if her level of skill and learning are conducive to one of the following three outcomes: 1) to upgrade back to Tier I instruction, 2) to continue receiving Tier II instruction, or 3) to begin receiving Tier III instruction. The team are using the dual-discrepancy approach, which analyzes a student's level of performance compared to a relevant benchmark, as well as their rate of improvement (growth) compared to a predetermined rate which would show adequate progress. The following chart summarizes the outcomes that can usually be expected based on these two criteria:

The criteria that Kateri's team are using to determine whether a student is responding adequately
to instruction is a performance level of 60 wpm (words per minute) and a rate of growth of 1.2. They have carefully gathered the data on Kateri's reading performance in the past 10 weeks using scores from a probe, with the organized information shown below: 

Kateri's performance level is the average of the last three scores on the left-hand chart, being (62 + 64 + 65) / 3 = 191/3 = 63.6, which exceeds the desired level of 60. Based on that alone, according to the first chart for determining tier placement, she could return to receiving Tier 1 instruction. However, the team would be wise to consider her growth rate as well. Using a formula (difference between Week 16 score minus Week 7 score, divided by the difference between the numbers of the last and first weeks of Tier II intervention) with the given numbers, we get the following rate: 65-40/17-7 = 25/10 = 2.5, which is certainly higher than the desired 1.2 rate of growth. So on both accounts, it would be safe to conclude Kateri has responded well to Tier II supports, and if I was one of the team, I would recommend that she be upgraded back to Tier I instruction. 

Level C, Case 1: Clay (age 7, 2nd Grade)

     

   This scenario regards Clay, a student who had been performing poorly in reading for the first seven weeks and has received Tier II instruction for thirteen following weeks. The support team at his elementary school is meeting to evaluate his progress and to determine if his level of skill and learning are conducive to one of the following three outcomes: 1) to upgrade back to Tier I instruction, 2) to continue receiving Tier II instruction, or 3) to begin receiving Tier III instruction. The team are using the dual-discrepancy approach, as was used with Kateri, but the criteria that Clay's team are using to determine whether a student is responding adequately to instruction is a performance level of 40 wpm and a rate of growth of 1.3. They have carefully gathered the data on Clay's reading performance in the past 13 weeks using scores from a probe, with the organized information shown below: 

Clay's performance level is the average of the last three scores on the left-hand chart, being (42 + 44 + 42) / 3 = 128/3 = 42.6, which exceeds the desired level of 40. Based on that alone, according to the first chart for determining tier placement, he could return to receiving Tier 1 instruction. However, the team would be wise to consider his growth rate as well. With the data from Clay's performance in the previously-used formula, we get the following rate: 42-25/20-8 = 17/12 = 1.417, which is higher than the desired 1.3 rate of growth. While the data shows that Clay is responding adequately to the Tier II instruction, I would be concerned by the inconsistency in the rate of growth as shown by the graph. Because of that, and because Clay's numbers are, in my opinion, too close the desired ones for comfort, I would recommend that Clay receive a second round of Tier II interventions. 

   If this recommendation was approved by the team, and I were to meet Clay's parents to explain the decision, I would imagine my end of the dialogue proceeding thus: 

"Hello Mr. and Mrs. C., thank you so much for meeting with me today. I'd like to discuss Clay's reading with you, and I am glad to say that I have great news! As you can see from this chart, our support team here at La Quinta Elementary kept track of the number of words per minute that Clay could read in the first couple of weeks of class. Because we saw that he was not quite attaining to the levels that were set based on the school's curriculum, we provided him with more specialized instruction for the next thirteen weeks. We have kept you informed of what supports we have been providing for him, and of course we have kept track of how he has responded to them. I recently sat down with our team to go over the numbers, and I am happy to report that Clay has responded quite well to the added help. As you can see on the chart, his number of words per minute are above the number that shows adequate progress, and we found that his rate of improvement is also higher than the average. We really are so proud for him, as this shows me that he is also making an effort to grow. I do want to let you know about a few things that the team and I discussed. Do you see these points here where his numbers go up then down below the line? I feel that this shows that, while he is obviously making progress, it's still a little wobbly. I think it's important that my students feel confident in their abilities, and that comes with being successful over time. I feel, and my colleagues agreed with me, that if we remove the supports that Clay has been receiving too soon, he may wobble back down to below the line. We want to make sure he maintains his winning streak, so we decided to provide him with another round of support during the upcoming weeks. I'd like your feedback on this decision, as I think you wanted to hear that Clay routine would normalize. We feel this is for the best, but I'd like to hear what you think and if you have any questions about what we've just discussed." 

References 

Brown, J., Skow, K., & the IRIS Center. (2009). RTI: Data-based decision making. Retrieved
on April 03, 2016 from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdf_
case_studies/ics_rtidm.pdf