SPED 5043 Week 7 case studies
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southeastern Oklahoma State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5043
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by JusticeUniverseDragon61
Emil, Age 6 Grade 1
Emil’s goal was 22 wpm. Calculating his most recent probes I determined his baseline. 22+26+30=78; 78/3=26. I have determined that tier 1 instruction is working for Emil. He performed above on his benchmark assessments and has met his goal of 22wpm. If he continues to score like this on the rest of his probes, he will more than likely meet his benchmark goals for the end of the year. I would recommend at this time Emil stay with tier 1 instruction and continue progress monitoring to make sure he stays on track. If progress continues, we will stay with tier 1 placement and if it declines, I will move him into tier 2 instruction. Hannah, Age 8 Grade 3
Hannah had a score of 50 on her first probe in week 1 and a 55 on her week 7 probe. These two scores, make her slope .83. A 1.2 is needed to be at benchmark, so therefore Hannah is below average. Hannah’s scores reflect that she is not responding to tier 1 instruction. She has not met her goal and intervention may be needed; therefore, I would move her into tier 2 instruction. Hannah should be moved to tier 2 instruction where she may need more explicit instruction in the classroom. I would try small group instruction that is more individualized for her needs. I would continue
to progress monitoring to make sure the tier 2 intervention is effective for her. Shaunika, Age 7 Grade 2 Shaunika’s performance is calculated at 26.5 and her slope is at 1.18. This was determined using her test probes. Her slope did fall below the expected rate of growth of 1.8. This tells me that Shaunika is not responding to the tier 2 intervention with her slope being 1.18. She needs more intervention to reach her goal, so I would move her to tier 3 intervention with a more individualized instruction plan. Reviewing Shaunika’s RTI data, I made the determination that she was not making adequate progress and responding to the current tier 2 instruction that she is receiving. She did not meet her goals therefore I would move her to tier 3 instruction. Kateri, Age 9 Grade 3
Kateri’s slope is a 2.7 and her performance level appears to be 63 wpm according to her test probes. This
exceeds the goal needed of a 1.2 and 60 wpm. I used her probes 62+64+65=191, 191/3=63. To determine her slope, I used week 7 probe of 40 and week 16 probe of 65. 16-7=9, 65-40=25,25/9=2.7. Kateri is responding adequately to tier 2 instruction. With her scores exceeding the benchmark in both her slope and performance level, her tier 2 instruction has worked well for her to reach the goal.
I would recommend Kateri be moved back to tier 1 instruction with she exceeding her goals. I would continue with group instruction in the general education setting. I would continue progress monitoring to ensure she stays on track to reach her goals. Paul, Age 8 Grade 3
Looking at Paul’s progress monitoring data and determining his slope, I calculated that his slope is at 1.2, and his performance level is 46. This data indicates that he is below the performance level goal of 55, but
he is above his slope level goal. Paul is responding to tier 2 instruction in my opinion, his slope is 1.2 which is above the goal slope of 1. This tells me that he is responding to the current tier 2 intervention, but even though he is showing adequate growth his performance level is still below the goal of 55 wpm. I believe they disagree about the tier of instruction he needs to be in because of his score differences. He
is above level on his slope, but below on his performance level. I would recommend Paul stay with the tier 2 instruction until he meets his performance goal. I would continue progress monitoring to ensure he is still making adequate progress and if changes need to be made to his instruction I can do so. Clay, Age 7 Grade 2
Clay’s performance level according to his data is 42 wpm and his slope is 1.4. Looking at these numbers Clay is above his academic performance. The goal was 40 wpm and he was at 42 wpm and his expected growth rate is 1.3. Clay’s current RTI data provided, shows that he is responding to the tier 2 instruction that he is receiving.
Clay’s slope is 1.4 which is above the goal of 1.3. He is exceeding the performance level of 40 wpm with 43 wpm. Meeting both goals proves that Clay is showing adequate growth with the instruction that he has been receiving. I would recommend that Clay be moved back to tier 1 instruction with continued progress monitoring to ensure that he is still making progress. He has met the goals that were required in the tier 2 instruction. If for some reason he falls back below the goal line in tier 1 instruction, I would quickly move him back to
tier 2 instruction.
As the teacher, I would show Clay’s parents his progress monitoring graph so they can see the visual picture of his progress. This I think would help them understand the decisions that have been made with his education. They would be able to see that he has made progress on the graph that the tier 2 instruction worked well for Clay and that goals were met. I would ensure that we would continue to progress monitoring as he returns to tier 1 instruction with the whole group instruction. I believe his progress is enough for Clay to be considered an on-level reader. I would ensure them that if Clay stays on
this track he would meet the end of the year goals needed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help