Rivas |1

Weeks 8 Case Study Project

Data-Based Decision Making

Brittni D. Rivas
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
SPED 5043: Student Assessment and the RTI Process
Instructor: Dr. Kathy Boothe
December 11, 2020
 Rivas |2

Background Data-Based Decision Making

Student: Emil Level A- Case 1
Age: 6
Grade: 1
Scenario
Emil is a first-grade student at Mitchell Elementary School. His teacher, Ms. Perry, administered

a universal screening measure a few weeks after school began. Emil’s score indicated that he

may be struggling in reading. As a result, Ms. Perry monitors his reading performance once per

week for five weeks using a measure of reading fluency. The five-week goal (or benchmark) is

22 words per minute (wpm). Emil’s scores are in the graph and table below.

Possible Activities
• Data-based decision making
• Determining performance level
• Making tier placement decisions
Assignment
1. Review the Case Study Set Introduction and each of the STAR sheets on the possible

activities listed above.

A review of the Case Study Set and STAR sheets was completed.

2. Using the five weeks of progress monitoring data outlined above, calculate Emil’s

performance level.
 Rivas |3

Emil’s benchmark goal is 22 words per minute. Using his three most recent

probes I calculated Emil’s average score, then determine a baseline. Emil’s

average on his last three probes is 22+26+30= 78; 78/3=26.

3. Determine whether Emil is responding adequately to Tier 1 instruction. Elaborate

on your response.

Because Emil’s benchmark scores are beginning to plot above the baseline goal of

22 words per minute (WPM), I can determine that Tier-1 intervention is working.

He is performing well on his benchmark assessments. Thus far, on his first 5

probes, Emil has scored 13 WPM on week one, 17 WPM on week two, 22 WPM

on week three, 26 on week four, and 28 on week five. He is doing well in Tier-1

and is surpassing his goal of 22 WPM. If he continues to excel, I can determine

that he will meet his end of the year benchmarks.

4. Based on your evaluation, what tier of instruction would you recommend for Emil?

At this time, I would recommend Emil remain in Tier-1 instruction but to continue

progress monitoring him weekly. If he is still progressing after one month, I

would determine his educational placement is effective. If his progress begins to

deteriorate, I will then recommend he be moved to Tier-2 instruction.

 Rivas |4

Background Data-Based Decision Making

Student: Hannah Level A - Case 2
Age: 8
Grade: 3
Scenario

Hannah is a third-grade student who transferred to Cartwright Elementary School late in the fall.

Her teacher, Mrs. Pei, has noticed that she seems to struggle with many independent reading

assignments. When Mrs. Pei administered the mid-year universal screening measure, she was not

surprised to see that Hannah’s score had fallen below the grade-level benchmark. Consequently,

Mrs. Pei monitors her reading performance once per week for seven weeks using a measure of

reading fluency. The rate of growth she is expected to achieve by the end of seven weeks is 1.2.

Hannah’s scores are in the graph and table below.

Possible Activities

• Data-based decision making

• Determining performance level
• Making tier placement decisions
Assignment
1. Review the Case Study Set Introduction and each of the STAR sheets on the possible

activities listed above.

 Rivas |5

A review of the Case Study Set and STAR sheets was completed.

2. Using the seven weeks of progress monitoring data outlined above, calculate

Hannah’s slope.

Hannah’s score on her first probe (week 1) was 50 and her last probe (week 7)

was 55. This gives her a slope of 0.83. This score is below her average rate of

growth of 1.2.

3. Determine whether Hannah is responding adequately to Tier-1 instruction.

Elaborate.

Hannah is not responding adequately to Tier-1 instruction. Since week 1, Hannah

has not met her rate of growth goal set, which is 1.2. She has continued this

pattern since week 1. Additional instruction is needed to assist he in achieving

success. She may need to be moved to Tier-2 instruction.

4. Based on your evaluation, what tier of instruction would you recommend for

Hannah?

I would recommend Hannah be moved to Tier-2 instruction because she needs

more explicit instruction. I believe she would be more successful if receiving

small group instruction that is more individualized to her needs.

 Rivas |6

Background Data-Based Decision Making

Student: Shaunika Level B - Case 1
Age: 7
Grade: 2
Scenario

At Pegram Elementary School, the first round of Tier 2 instruction has ended for four second-

grade students who were not responding adequately to the reading instruction in the general

education classroom. The second-grade school support team is ready to meet to evaluate the

progress of these students and to determine each student’s instructional needs. They begin by

evaluating Shaunika’s Tier 2 progress monitoring data. The team will use the dual-discrepancy

approach to determine how Shaunika has responded to Tier 2 instruction and to decide what tier

of instruction would best meet her current instructional needs. The criteria the team are using to

determine whether a student is responding adequately to instruction is a performance level of 45

wpm and a rate of growth of 1.8

Possible Activities

• Data-based decision making

• Determining performance level
• Determining rate of growth
• Determining dual discrepancy
• Making Tier placement decisions
Assignment
1. Review the Case Study Set Introduction to each of the STAR sheets on the possible

activities listed above.

A review of the Case Study Set and STAR sheets was completed.

2. Using the twelve weeks of Tier-2 progress monitoring data outlined above, calculate

Shaunika’s performance level and slope.

 Rivas |7

Shaunika’s present performance level is 26.5 and her slope is 1.18. To determine

her slope, I used Shaunika’s score on her first probe (week 8), 14 words per

minute (WPM), and her last probe (week 19), 27 WPM. This gives her a slope of

1.18. Her slope is below her expected rate of growth of 1.8. Her performance

level is the average of her two most recent probes. Her average performance level

is 26.5 (27) words per minute (WPM). This average is below her expected

performance level of 45 WPM.

3. Using the dual-discrepancy approach, determine whether Shaunika is responding

adequately to Tier-2 instruction. Explain your response.

Shaunika is not responding to Tier-2 instruction. Her slope is 1.8 and her average

performance level is 27 words per minute. Because her slope is below her

expected rate of growth of 1.8 and her performance level is below her expected

performance level of 45 WPM, she is not responding adequately to Tier 2

instruction. I would recommend she be place in Tier-3 instruction for more

individualized high-quality instruction.

4. Based on your evaluation, what tier of instruction would you recommend for

Shaunika?

Upon reviewing Shaunika’s RTI data, I determined that she did not respond

adequately to Tier-1 instruction alone. In Tier-2 instruction she still did show

adequate growth and was not reaching the benchmark rate of growth. Because her

slope and rate of growth are still below benchmark level and she is not making

adequate progress the most appropriate placement based on Shaunika would be in

Tier-3 instruction.
 Rivas |8

Background Data-Based Decision Making

Student: Kateri Level B - Case 2
Age: 9
Grade: 3
Scenario

Kateri has received Tier 2 instruction for ten weeks. Her Tier 2 instructor believes that she has

made great progress with the more targeted instruction. The Leonard Elementary School support

team is ready to meet to evaluate Kateri’s progress and to determine whether she has made

enough progress to be successful with Tier 1 instruction only or whether she needs more

intensive instruction. The team will use the dual-discrepancy approach to determine how Kateri

has responded to Tier 2 instruction and to decide what tier of instruction would meet her current

instructional needs. The criteria the team are using to determine whether a student is responding

adequately to instruction is a performance level of 60 wpm and a rate of growth of 1.2.

Possible Activities

• Data-based decision making

• Determining performance level
• Determining rate of growth
• Determining dual discrepancy
• Making Tier placement decisions
Assignment
1. Review the Case Study Set Introduction and each of the STAR sheets on the

possible activities listed above.

A review of the Case Study Set and STAR sheets was completed.

2. Using the ten weeks of Tier 2 progress monitoring data above, calculate Kateri’s

performance level and slope.

 Rivas |9

Kateri’s slope is 2.7 and her performance level is 63.6 words per minute (WPM);

therefore, her academic performance exceeds her expected growth rate of 1.2 and

her expected performance level of 60 WPM.

To determine Kateri’s current performance level I found the average of her three

most recent probes, 62 + 64 + 65 = 191. 191/3 – 63.6 (64) WPM. To determine

Kateri’s slope I used the following data:

Week 7 probe = 40, Week 16 probe = 65.

I completed the following steps:

Step 1 – I subtracted the week number of her first probe from the week

number from her last probe. 16 – 7 = 9.

Step 2 - I subtracted the score on her first probe from the score on her last

probe, 65 – 40 = 25.

Step 3 - I divided the results of step 2 by the results of step 1, 25/9 = 2.7.

3. Using the dual-discrepancy approach, determine whether Kateri is responding

adequately to Tier 2 instruction. Explain your answer.

Using Kateri’s current RTI data, she is responding adequately to Tier-2 instruction. Her

slope is a 2.7, which well exceeds her expected growth rate of 1.2. Her performance

level is at 64 WPM which also exceeds her expected performance level of 60.

4. Based on your evaluation, what tier of instruction would you recommend for

Kateri?

I would recommend Kateri be moved to Tier-1 instruction because she has well

exceeded her expected benchmarks in Tier-2 instruction. I believe she would continue

to be successful if receiving whole group instruction in the general education setting.

Continued progress monitoring will be necessary to ensure she continues to thrive

and reach her intended benchmarks.

 R i v a s | 10

Background Data-Based Decision Making

Student: Paul Level B - Case 3
Age: 8
Grade: 3
Scenario

Paul attends Lincoln Elementary School. He has received Tier 2 instruction for 10 weeks. Paul’s

teacher has been monitoring his progress using the Vanderbilt University Passage Reading

Fluency probe. Paul’s eighteen-week goal is 55 WPM, and his expected rate of growth is 1. The

school support team is meeting today to review Paul’s progress and to determine what tier of

instruction would best meet his current educational needs. When they apply the dual-discrepancy

approach, the support team members disagree about what tier of instruction would best meet

Paul’s needs.

Possible Activities

• Data-based decision making

• Determining performance level
• Determining rate of growth
• Determining dual discrepancy
• Making Tier placement decisions
Assignment
1. Review the Case Study Set Introduction and each of the STAR sheets on the

possible activities listed above.

A review of the Case Study Set and STAR sheets was completed.

2. Using the ten weeks of Tier 2 progress monitoring data above, calculate Paul’s

performance level and slope.

 R i v a s | 11

According to Paul’s progress monitoring data, his performance level is 45.7 and

his slope is 1.2. This data indicates that his academic performance is below his

expected performance level of 55, but his slope is above his expected growth rate.

3. Using the dual-discrepancy approach, determine whether Paul is responding

adequately to Tier 2 instruction. Explain your answer.

Using Paul’s current RTI data, he is responding adequately to Tier-2 instruction.

Paul’s rate of growth (slope) is a 1.2, which is greater than the specified rate of

growth of 1. A greater slope indicates he is responding adequately to instruction

and is showing adequate growth. Though showing adequate growth, his

performance level of 45.7, far below his expected performance level of 55 WPM.

4. Why do you think the support team members disagree about what tier of

instruction would best meet Paul’s needs? What tier of instruction would you

recommend for Paul—Tier 1 instruction only or another round of Tier 2

instruction? Explain your decision.

The support team members disagree about what tier of instruction would best

meet Paul’s needs because, though his slope of 1.2 is exceeding his expected

growth of 1, his performance level of 45.7 WPM is far below his expected

performance level of 55 WPM. I would recommend Paul stay in Tier-2

instruction at this time. Though his performance rate is far below his expected

level of 55 WPM his growth rate of 1.2 indicate he is showing adequate growth.

Continued progress monitoring will be necessary to ensure he continues to show

growth and reach his intended benchmarks.

 R i v a s | 12

Background Data-Based Decision Making

Student: Clay Level C - Case 1
Age: 7
Grade: 2
Scenario

The La Quinta Elementary School support team is ready to review the Tier 2 progress monitoring

data for a few students. One of these students, Clay, has received Tier 2 instruction for thirteen

weeks. The school support team will evaluate Clay’s progress monitoring data to determine how

he has responded to Tier 2 instruction and to decide which instructional tier would best meet his

needs. The team will use the dual-discrepancy approach to answer these questions. The criteria

the 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. Once the school support team has

completed its evaluation of Clay’s data, his teacher will contact Clay’s parents and arrange a

meeting to discuss Clay’s progress and the team’s recommendations regarding his tier placement.

Assignment
1. Review the Case Study Set Introduction and each of the STAR sheets on the

possible activities listed above.

A review of the Case Study Set and STAR sheets was completed.

2. Using the thirteen weeks of Tier 2 progress monitoring data outlined above,

calculate Clay’s performance level and slope.

According to Clay’s progress monitoring data, his performance level is 42.7 (43)

words per minute (WPM) and his slope is 1.4. This data indicates that his

academic performance is above his expected performance level of 40 WPM and

his slope is above his expected growth rate of 1.3.

 R i v a s | 13

3. Using the dual-discrepancy approach, determine whether Paul is responding

adequately to Tier 2 instruction. Explain your answer.

Using Clay’s current RTI data, he is responding adequately to Tier-2 instruction.

Clay’s rate of growth (slope) is a 1.4, which is greater than the specified rate of

growth of 1.3. His performance level of 43 exceeds his expected performance

level of 40. A greater slope and performance level indicate he is responding

adequately to instruction and is showing adequate growth.

4. Based on your evaluation, what tier of instruction would you recommend for Clay?

I would recommend Clay be moved to Tier-1 instruction because he has met his

expected benchmarks in Tier-2 instruction. Continued progress monitoring will be

necessary to ensure he continues to thrive and reach his intended benchmarks. If

future progress monitoring indicate he is continuing to progress he should remain

in Tier-1 instruction, but if data indicates a loss of growth, Tier-2 instruction may

be necessary again.

5. Imagine you are Clay’s teacher. Describe in detail what information you would

share with his parents and how you would justify the team’s tier placement

recommendations.

I would first show Clay’s parents his progress monitoring data table and graph,

then explain what his scores mean. After explaining the progress monitoring data

table and graph, I would say, “Clay is responding adequately to the general

education instruction and added supports of Tier-2 instruction. His performance

level of 43 WPM exceeds his expected performance level of 40 WPM. His slope

of 1.3 is also above his expected rate of growth. He continues to make adequate

progress and I feel he is ready to move back to whole group Tier-1 instruction

only. His progress is significant enough for him to be considered an on-level

 R i v a s | 14

reader. He is meeting his benchmark goals. We will continue to progress monitor

Paul regularly to ensure he is continuing to show growth. If he continues to

progress as he currently is, he will be an on-level reader at the end of the school

year.”