Combined Literacy & Special Education Leadership Network
September 2025
Attendance & Graduate Credit
Please complete the attendance link in the chat box.
There are 16 State Support Teams in Ohio.
SSTs are under the direction of the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce.
SSTs provide Tier II and Tier III services to Local Education Agencies who need additional supports.
Literacy & Special Education Leadership Network Dates
Date Time
September 17 9:00-11:30
November 13 9:00-11:30
January 21 9:00-11:30
March 11 9:00-11:30
May 14 9:00-11:30
Network Format
Combined Network Topics
September
Using data to inform RIMPS and IEPs
RIMP and IEP alignments
November
Progress Monitoring
January
SPP Compliance Indicators
Indicators 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d
March
Data Systems
What data do teams analyze?
May
What does the Special Ed team analyze?
Specially Designed Instruction
Why are we doing this?
DEW - SST Grant Agreement
DEW - Student Outcome Data
SST Grant Agreement
SST Grant Activities
There are 10 Grant Activities.
#2, 3, 4 - SWD - compliance & outcomes
#6 - Literacy - including SWD
#8 - Math - including SWD
#10 - SWD - preschool
The term “Students with Disabilities” appears 74 times in the Grant Agreement
Special Education Profile Data
What is Indicator 3b?
(based on 2023 - 2024 data)
The percentage of students with disabilities scoring proficient or above on state reading and math assessments
Percentage proficient in grade 4
Percentage proficient in grade 8
Percentage proficient in high school
Grade 4 Reading Proficiency
16 LEAs MET the target
Proficiency Rate Range = 30.43% - 58.33%
18 LEAs did NOT meet the target
Proficiency Rate Range = 0.00% - 27.78%
11 LEAs have not met the target for 3 consecutive years
Target - equal to or > 27.96%
Grade 8 Reading Proficiency
6 LEAs MET the target
Proficiency Rate Range = 18.75% - 31.25%
28 LEAs did NOT meet the target
Proficiency Rate Range = 0.00% - 14.29%
10 LEAs have not met the target for 3 consecutive years
Target - equal to or > 16.97%
High School Reading Proficiency
22 LEAs MET the target
Proficiency Rate Range = 25% - 50%
11 LEAs did NOT meet the target
Proficiency Rate Range = 0.00% - 22.73%
10 LEAs have not met the target for 3 consecutive years
Target - equal to or > 23.84%
Report Card Data
Report Card
Region 9 has 40 LEAs
12 LEAs had a proficiency rate of 50% or less
17 LEAs had a proficiency rate between 50%-75%
11 LEAs had a proficiency rate of 75% or more
RIMP and IEP Alignment
Alignment of RIMPs and IEPs
RIMP
Goal - Improve one of the big five areas of reading
Evidence Based Program/Practice
Grouping
Frequency
Duration
Provider
IEP
Reading Goal - Improve one of the big five areas of reading
SDI - Evidence Based Program/Practice
Grouping
Frequency
Duration
Provider
AT
Accom.
RIMP
Goal - Improve one of the big five areas of reading
Evidence Based Program/Practice
Grouping
Frequency
Duration
Provider
IEP
Reading Goal - Improve one of the big five areas of reading
SDI - Evidence Based Program/Practice
Grouping
Frequency
Duration
Provider
AT
Accom.
Aligned RIMPs and IEPs = Accelerated Learning
Example
5th Grader Data
Current Performance
Screener Composite Score: 333 (below benchmark)
Words Correct: 107 (below benchmark)
Accuracy: 96% (below benchmark)
Retell: 39 (at benchmark)
MAZE: 15 (below benchmark)
Diagnostic Data: Erin can read CVC, CCVC/CVCC, CVCe, single syllable vowel teams, and single syllable vowel-r. She is unable to read multisyllabic words with vowel teams and vowel-r
Grade Level EOY Screener Goals
Composite Score: 466
Words Correct: 130
Accuracy: 99%
Retell: 36
MAZE: 24
5th Grade IEP goal sample
Annual Goal: (Literacy – Decoding/Fluency Focus)
�Given a 5th grade passage, Erin will read 130 words with 99% accuracy per minute measured across three trials.
IEP Services - Section 7
Type of Service | Goal | Provider Title | Location of Service |
SPECIALLY DESIGNED INSTRUCTION | |||
Direct small group explicit, systematic phonics instruction in decoding multisyllabic words | IS | General Education Classroom | |
BEGIN: 9/1/2025 | END: 9/1/2026 | AMOUNT OF TIME: 120 minutes | FREQUENCY: weekly |
5th grade RIMP
Which assessment was used to determine the continuation of the RIMP and what are the results?
Ohio’s State Test (English language arts) was used to determine if the student requires the continuation of RIMP interventions.
The student has been identified as reading below grade level based on the results of Ohio’s State Test.
Student test scores are below:
Date | Assessment | Scaled Score | Proficient Score |
| Ohio State Test - English Language Arts | 670 | 700 |
5th grade RIMP cont…
What assessments were used to inform instructional and intervention supports?
The following screening and/or diagnostic assessments were used to determine the specific skill needs of your student to determine the next steps for instruction.
Consider using screening and/or diagnostic assessments to determine student skill needs. For example, a district or school may consider using the same assessment as used in kindergarten-grade 3 for the K-3 reading diagnostic if the assessment is designed to support students in upper grades or consider using a single measure such as a MAZE assessment or oral reading fluency measure. In addition, districts and schools should consider what additional diagnostic assessments can be used to understand the specific skill needs in literacy, including needs in decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and/or comprehension.
Date | Assessment | Knowledge/Skills Assessed | Student Score/Percentile | Proficient Score/Percentile |
| Screener Name | Reading rate, accuracy, comprehension | 333 | 386 |
| Diagnostic Name | Decoding skills | | |
5th grade RIMP cont…
Dyslexia Screening Section
Services and Supports
This plan has been created for this student with the goal of improving:
☐Basic Decoding: Phonemic Awareness (ability to break a word into individual sounds) and Phonics (Knowing relationships between sounds (phonemes) and letters (graphemes and how to sound out words)
☐ Advanced Decoding: Multisyllabic Word Reading (breaking words into smaller parts using combined knowledge of all letter-sound correspondences, syllabication patterns, and Morphology (meanings of word parts - roots, prefixes, and suffixes)
☐Vocabulary: Understanding the meaning of words we speak, hear, read, and write
☐Reading Fluency: Reading connected text accurately, fluently, and for meaning
☐Reading Comprehension: Gaining meaning from text
Diagnostic Data: Erin can read CVC, CCVC/CVCC, CVCe, single syllable vowel teams, and single syllable vowel-r. She is unable to read multisyllabic words with vowel teams and vowel-r
IEP goal: Given a 5th grade passage, Erin will read 130 words with 99% accuracy per minute measured across three trials.
5th grade RIMP cont…
Based on the data, the student will receive these supports:
☐Tier 1 :(Core structured literacy curriculum and instruction for all students) + Differentiation: (targeted instruction based on the needs of the student)
☐Tier 2: Targeted Intervention (required time in addition to core instruction to fit the needs of the student)
☐Tier 3: Intensive Intervention (required time in addition to core instruction as fits the needs of the student)
Description of Supplemental or Remedial Reading Services and Supports
Tier 1 + Supports and Services (ALL students - including students who qualify to take Ohio’s AASCD and learners across all LRE settings)
Tier 2 - Specific Splinter Skill Gaps - requires targeted reteaching and often repeated practice with specific skills within one or more strand/domain-intervention tools must be flexible to meet the exact content, method and delivery of student needs.
Tier 3 - Large Domain or Strand Gaps - requires full review of entire scope and sequence of skills - intervention tools must meet the exact content, method, and delivery of student needs.
5th grade RIMP cont…
Type of Instructional Support (RIMP Intervention Code) | | |
☐ Summer Structured Literacy Programs | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Writing (Transcription) | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Writing (Composition Skills) | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Phonemic Awareness | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Sight Word Recognition | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Decoding | | |
Instructional Supports (RIMP Intervention Codes):
The following RIMP Intervention Program Codes, as reported in the Education Management Information System (EMIS), best describe the instructional supports the student will receive under the plan:
☐ Explicit Intervention in Comprehension | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Fluency | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Vocabulary | | |
☐ Small Group Scaffolding of Complex Text | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Communication/Language | | |
☐ Multi-Modal Approach to Structured Literacy | | |
☐ Explicit Intervention in Advanced Word Study |
| |
3x/week for 30 minutes
5th grade RIMP cont…
Program materials used during intervention time:
Approved core curriculum and evidence based reading intervention programs from the Department’s List of HQIM.
Plan for monitoring student progress:
Name of Assessment | Frequency of Monitoring |
Progress Monitoring assessment name: Acadience Oral Reading Fluency Level 5 |
|
Alignment Between the IEP Goal and the RIMP Goal
Both goals target the same advanced reading skill: advanced word study — which is the ability to accurately decode and read multisyllabic words at a quick enough rate and with enough fluency to have comprehension.
Advanced word study is essential for fluency, comprehension, and overall literacy success. Let’s break down the connection.
Aligned Focus: Decoding Multisyllabic Words
👉 Why this matters: Fifth-grade texts often contain complex, multisyllabic words. If a student can’t decode these words, comprehension and fluency suffer.
Both goals work together to build this skill using different but
complementary strategies.
Purpose and Scope
👉 Why this matters: The IEP is the legal and instructional framework tailored to the students. The RIMP ensures students receive intensive support if they are not on track to meet state reading benchmarks.
The IEP and RIMP should reinforce one another.
Consistent Measurement and Progress Monitoring
👉 Why this matters: Using consistent assessments across the IEP and RIMP allows teachers to get a clear, unified picture of the student’s growth.
This ensures timely adjustments to instruction and intervention.
Instructional Strategies Overlap
👉 Why this matters: Instruction isn’t fragmented. The student receives reinforced and repeated exposure to essential literacy skills across their IEP and RIMP sessions, increasing the chance of mastery.
Opportunities to practice a new skill to achieve mastery:
How This Supports Overall Literacy Growth
By targeting advanced word study (a core component of reading) through both an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and a reading improvement and monitoring plan (RIMP), the student receives layered, intentional support that:
Ensure that skills taught in intervention are transferable to Tier 1 tasks and expectations.
Ongoing collaboration between special education and general education staff will promote instructional alignment and student acceleration.
Resources
Something to Watch | |
Something to Read | |
Something to Listen To |
Special Education Directors
Welcome!
Britta Hough
Project Manager
Department of Developmental Disabilities
britta.hough@dodd.ohio.gov
Office:(614) 813-3255
Put topics for Legal Updates in the chat box
NEW IDEA Monitoring Guide
Special Education Desk Review
Ohio Required Forms
Parents Rights / Procedural Safeguards
Secure Data Center Reports - NEW!
Click HERE for Accountability Trainings
WHY?
Trying to move away from data appeals during the SPP phases.
Model Policies & Procedures
LEAs are required to notify DEW of their P & P every year via the Monitoring System.
Starting the 2025-2026 school year and every year after, the due date is Nov. 30.
DEW FAQ #7: If our board has approved the Model Policies and Procedures in March and nothing changes by November, can we submit the same March document indicating this?
Yes, if no changes were made to the Special Education Model Policies and Procedures, educational agencies can re-submit their board approval from March indicating the adoption of these policies in November. This can occur until a change to the Special Education Model Policies and Procedures occurs.
Upcoming Events
Thank you for joining us today!
Next Meeting:
November 13
9:00 - 11:30
Curriculum Directors
What is the current status of your district’s MTSS handbook/
framework?
Navigating Reading Assessments
Navigating Reading Assessments
Building an Impactful Assessment System
The purpose of the Reading Tiered Fidelity Inventory (R-TFI) is to provide schools with a school-level fidelity tool to assess the reading components of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework. The R-TFI is divided into two sections: Universal Tier 1 and Advanced Tiers (Tiers 2 and 3). The results should be used for planning supports and allocating resources, and never used for punitive purposes.
The R-TFI is completed by the school leadership team and, for the Advanced Tiers, members of the multidisciplinary team. The R-TFI provides a guide for teams to strengthen reading supports for all learners, including students with disabilities. Teams use the results to understand their current levels of implementation, prioritize areas for professional learning, and examine progress over time.
Building an Impactful Assessment System
R-TFI item 1.4 in Elementary and Secondary:
The school has a comprehensive Tier 1 reading assessment system and personnel to support the system.
The school has a comprehensive Tier 1 reading assessment system that outlines the following information:
AND:
Individual(s) do the following to support the comprehensive reading assessment system:
Purposes of Assessments
What kind of test is it?
screener (s) diagnostic (d) progress monitoring (pm) outcome (o)
KRA |
Acadience/DIBELS |
State Assessments |
End of Course |
CORE Phonics Survey |
screener
screener and progress monitoring
outcome
outcome
diagnostic
Example Case Study 1
Based on the annual results of Ohio’s State Tests in English Language Arts in grades 3-8, district and school leaders in Buckeyeland School District know that many of their students struggle with reading. Over the years, they have regularly convened educators to scrutinize the released questions from the English Language Arts test. They have conducted item analyses and closely examined students’ test results to pinpoint those who may require additional practice in areas such as informational text, narrative text, vocabulary, and writing.
Educators have made efforts to support students with study skills and practice questions for the tests, implementing small group instruction to address specific skills such as identifying the main idea and making inferences. Despite these efforts, there has been no noticeable improvement in student performance. The teachers and the administrators recognize there is a problem, but they aren’t sure how to determine the root cause or where to start.
Example Case Study 2
The school used the NWEA MAP percentile ranking from the Spring of the previous year and the Fall of the current year as a first "gate" to identify at-risk students.
Seventy-five students were tested via NWEA MAP. The table represents the 6th-grade students at or below the 40th percentile according to MAP in either the Spring or the Fall (as well as one teacher recommendation).
After consulting with regional literacy specialists, the school team recognized this data fell short of identifying specific reading needs, so the school continued to gather data.
Example Case Study 2 continued
They decided to administer an Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) and MAZE assessment:
These tools gave teachers ongoing, actionable data they could use to monitor students’ progress toward grade-level standards.
Example Case Study 2 continued
Analysis of ORF and MAZE results revealed diverse reading profiles:
Teachers monitored progress closely, adjusting interventions based on ongoing ORF and MAZE scores, rather than waiting for the end-of-year test. By linking frequent formative data to target interventions, teachers could anticipate which students were likely to struggle on state tests, why, and intervene proactively.
This approach marked a shift from the previous test-prep strategy. Instead of reacting to poor OST results, teachers now had:
Discussion
How well does your current system of assessments help you identify students’ specific literacy needs, and are there gaps that prevent timely, targeted support?
Building an Impactful Assessment System
________________________________________________________________________________
Example District wide testing and data analysis calendar
Building an Impactful Assessment System
Individual(s) do the following to support the comprehensive reading assessment system:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Resources
Ohio’s Integrated Multi-Tiered System of Supports (IMTSS) Website
Department of Education and Workforce Literacy Website
Thank you for joining us today!
Next Meeting:
November 13
9:00 - 11:30
There are no copyright restrictions on this document, product and/or software; however, please cite and credit the source when copying all or part of this document, product and/or software.
This document/product/software was supported in whole or in part by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, (Award H027A210111 CFDA 84.027A, Award H173A210119 - 21A CFDA 84.173A, or other funds awarded to the Ohio Department of Education).
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and no official endorsement by the Department should be inferred.