DIET SB-2 Guidance Document
To allow for more accurate scoring on the DIET-SB2, this guidance document seeks to provide further clarity on how to score items. It provides
definitions of terms, follow-up probing questions and possible examples and non-examples for how items could be answered. Please note: probing
questions should only be asked when necessary to help the respondent answer the question clearly and completely. If the respondent is able to
provide a clear answer initially, the probe does not need to be asked.
Interview Question
1.
2.
Clarifying Questions & Notes
Do you have a Building Implementation Team
(BIT)*? How often does it meet? What does it
*See definition of Building Implementation Team in
do?
glossary below
Does your school or district have standards
of practice* for core including core materials
and instructional strategies? What are
they? (EVIDENCE: Core Standards of
*See definition of Standards of Practice in glossary
below
Practice Document)
3.
How do you monitor fidelity of core reading
implementation and effective instructional
strategies? (EVIDENCE: Core Walkthrough
Form)
4.
How do you train your staff who give the
screening assessments? How often?
Example
Non-examples
RTI building team
100% Team, 20%
Team, Student
Study/Referral Team
Individual Problem
Solving, Behavior, IEP
Non Negotiables,
District Agreements,
Core Outline
PROBE: Are walkthroughs directly tied to district
Standards of Practice?
Note: If there is no district Standards of Practice (Item 2),
mark 0 points for item 3
PROBE: Is there formal training? Initial only? Initial
AND yearly ‘refresher’?
Note: Score based on the level of training that most staff
who give screening assessments receive
5.
6.
7.
8.
How often do you review your core data with
each grade level?
How do you identify students to receive an
intervention? About what percentage of
students do you serve in interventions?
Of the students receiving interventions, how
do you determine which interventions they
receive? (EVIDENCE: Decision rules for
PROBE: 1, 2, or 3 times a year?
100% meetings,
benchmark or
screening meetings
Any review of core data
without all grade-level
teachers present
PROBE: Is intervention placement/entrance primarily
based on teacher referral, or primarily on screening data?
PROBE: Do you use a single piece or multiple (2 or
more) pieces of data? What are they?
intervention placement)
Note: If no interventions are provided (Item 6 above),
How often do grade level teams meet to
review the progress monitoring data for all
PROBE: Do you meet consistently every 4-8 weeks?
mark 0 points on item 7
Placement Pathways,
Guidelines for
matching assessments
to intervention
programs
Group intervention
review, GrIP Team
SST, SAT, IPS
meetings
DIET SB-2 Guidance Document
9.
students in interventions at the grade level
(e.g., 20% meetings*)?
How do you use decision rules* to determine
when to change interventions* for a student?
(EVIDENCE: Decision rules/Progress
monitoring graphs)
10. What qualifies as a "change" in
intervention*? (EVIDENCE: Handbook,
Decision rules)
11. Do you have a process for intensifying
interventions after a student has been
unsuccessful in group interventions? (e.g.
Individual Problem Solving*) (EVIDENCE: If
yes, review a completed Individual Problem
Solving form)
12. Who checks for fidelity of interventions?
How often? Is there a form used?
(EVIDENCE: Intervention fidelity forms)
13. Who teaches interventions? What training do
they receive? How often?
*See definition of 20% Meetings in glossary below
*See definitions of Change of Intervention & Decision
Rules in glossary below
Note: Decision rules must match progress monitoring graph
to be scored full credit
*See definition of Change of Intervention in glossary
below
PROBE: Are there documented rules for a ‘change’ in
intervention? Are there documented rules for exiting a
student from intervention?
*See definition of Individual Problem Solving Process in
glossary below
Individual Problem
Solving Process
initiated by teacher
referral
Note: Score completed IPS form based on the number of problem
solving steps and ICEL components present. See definition below
for list of steps and ICEL components.
PROBE: Is fidelity checked multiple times a year? Is it done
consistently?
PROBE: Is there formal training? Initial only? Initial AND
ongoing support?
Note: Score based on the level of training that most staff
14. Who is responsible for managing* progress
monitoring data?
15. Do you use RTI for special education
eligibility? (EVIDENCE: IF yes, review SLD
evaluation report)
who give interventions receive
*See definition of Data Manager in glossary below
PROBE: Is there one person, multiple people, or no
identified manager?
PROBE: Are none, some, or all SLD evals done using RTI?
Note: Necessary components of SLD evaluation reports are
documentation of 1. Low skills, 2. Slow progress, 3
Instructional need, and 4. Exclusionary factors.
16. Does your hiring process include questions
related to RTI practices AND activities
related to RTI (e.g., behavior vignettes, data
analysis, lesson demos, etc.)?
Evidence Item
Clarifying Questions & Notes
Example
Non-examples
DIET SB-2 Guidance Document
1. Completed 100% Meeting Agenda
2. Building Schedule
a.Core
b. Interventions
a. Core
Total of 450 minutes per week of daily core reading:
5 days a week schedule – 90 minutes daily
4 days a week schedule – 115 minutes daily
Note: For Half Day Kindergarten – 60 minutes daily
b. Interventions
Note: Interventions must be scheduled at all grade levels
3. Universal Screening Database
4. Progress Monitoring Database
a. Progress Monitoring Measure
b. Progress Monitoring Instructional Match
& Frequency*
*See definition of Progress Monitoring Frequency in
glossary below
*See definition of Progress Monitoring Instructional
Match in glossary below
5. Reading Protocol & sample student
intervention profile or student file
a. Reading Protocol
b. Interventions are research-based*
*See Resources for selecting what is ‘research-based’
provided below
Glossary of Terms & Resources
Building Implementation Team (Interview Item 1)
A school-based team that leads RTI implementation at the school level and makes decisions about how resources are allocated. Usually includes the principal, literacy
coach or specialist, other specialists, and teacher leaders.
Standards of Practice (Interview Items 2 & 3)
Documentation of common agreements that serve as the basis for core implementation across all classrooms. May include agreements around what components of the
core materials are used in all classrooms. May also include agreements around common instructional strategies used in all classrooms.
DIET SB-2 Guidance Document
20% Meetings (Interview Item 8)
Regular grade level meetings (preferably every 4-8 weeks) to review the progress of students receiving interventions and determine next steps based on decision rules.
These meetings should include the principal, literacy experts, grade level teachers and specialists as needed.
Decision Rules (Interview Item 9)
Agreed upon and documented rules that use data to help guide the decision-making process. For Example: When students have 3 or more consecutive points below an
aimline, a change in intervention is considered. Decision rules should also be agreed upon for when to “exit” students from intervention.
Change in Intervention (Interview Item 9 & 10)
Any change to an existing intervention that is determined to create a “different” intervention. This should be agreed upon and documented in the school district’s RTI
handbook. For example, this could include a change in group size, intervention curriculum, time, addition of a behavior plan, etc. Once a change in intervention is
initiated, the student is considered to be a categorically different intervention, rather than a modification to the existing intervention.
Individual Problem Solving (Interview Item 11)
A process that examines all variables that impact student learning (ICEL - Instruction, Curriculum, Environment, Learner) and creates a plan to address weaknesses in
those variables in order to improve student learning. This process follows an agreed upon number of group intervention(s) without adequate progress. Problem Solving
Steps include: 1. Problem Identification, 2. Problem Analysis, 3. Plan Development, and 4. Plan Implementation & Evaluation.
Data Manager (Interview Item 14)
Any person who is responsible for the input, management, and creation of data reports for student level data. They are also responsible for ensuring the appropriate data
reports are present at data meetings, and ensure that data is collected and input in a timely manner.
Progress Monitoring Frequency (Evidence item 4)
Students with the most intensive needs should be monitored weekly. Students with a lower level of need may be monitored every other week or once monthly.
Progress Monitoring Instructional Match (Evidence item 4)
The progress-monitoring tool used should be matched to the specific skills being taught in the intervention. For example, if an intervention is focusing on phonemic
awareness, a phonemic awareness measure (like DIBELS PSF) should be used to monitor the student’s progress.
Research-based Intervention Resources (Evidence Item 5)
What Works Clearinghouse: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
National Center on Intensive Interventions: http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools