1. Evaluating District-Wide Professional Learning to Build Capacity for RTI
Michelle Avila Bolling, Ed.S.
Lisa Sirian Stear, Ph.D.
Sharon Rinks, Psy.D.
Danny Hicks, Ed.S.
Cindy Jenik, Ph.D.

2. Goals for Today’s Session
Establish the context
Project conception
System support
Format for training
Enabling and disabling factors
Outcome data
Future plans
Questions
Explore the CD of materials

3. Carroll County West central GA On GA/AL state line 50 miles from
Atlanta
503 square miles
Population 109,965
(2006 census)
Cost of living
93% of U.S avg.

4. District Enrollment 23rd largest school system in Georgia
14,800 students in
Pre-K through 12th grade
Ethnicity:
68% White
18% African-American
7% Other

5. Personnel 2,225 total staff members 99.25% “Highly Qualified” teachers
1,261 certified
964 classified
99.25% “Highly Qualified” teachers
62% of certified staff members hold masters degree or higher
Psychological Services
4 doctoral, 4 educational specialist
3 licensed, 5 certified
APPIC training program

6. Schools • 11 elementary schools • 6 middle schools • 6 high schools
• 3 ninth grade academies
• 1 alternative school
• 1 technical education center
2 psychoeducational centers

7. Project Timeline Spring 2007 Summer 2007 Spring/Summer 2008 Fall 2008
Georgia mandated RTI to begin Fall 2007
Summer 2007
District RTI Manual introduced to principals
Every school provided a copy
Spring/Summer 2008
Conceptualized the RTI Institute
Created training materials
Fall 2008
Conducted training
Spring 2009
School teams redelivered
Fall 2009/Spring 2010
Evaluated progress

8. The Problem Frustration from implementation or lack thereof
Need for training others
Lack of district resources and funds
Lack of state-level guidance
Confusion regarding the 4-tier pyramid

9. The Problem: Referral Data
Manual Released
Training Occurred

10. Project Conception Seeking System Support Met with our supervisor
Met with the district PD coordinator
Mapped out a blueprint for training
Arranged for leadership module

11. Project Conception District Enabling Support
Extra work days over the summer to develop modules
Time commitment
Extra support from graduate student interns and practicum students
Provided materials, meeting space, and snacks
Paid for substitutes for teacher participants

13. Leadership Module Leadership and administrative support
Important for any innovation and essential if you want it to work
Administrators control resources
Time
Personnel
Materials/resources
Administrators outline duties and expectations for personnel
Endorsement in the face of possible resistance to change

14. Unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes
Unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes... but no plans.
- Peter Drucker

15. The Professional Learning Model
Voluntary participation
Distributed learning over time
Meaningful choices
Opportunities for practice
Authentic cases
Learning communities/teaming
Responsive to participants’ needs
Tailored feedback

17. Selecting Team Members
Voluntary participation
Administrative representation
3-4 other individuals
Curriculum specialists
Grade-level teacher leaders
Counselors
Psychologists
Graduation coaches
Special education teachers
All team members had to commit to completion of the entire training.

18. I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.
- Ralph Nader

20. Overview Module Agenda
Overview of training
Establish a common language
Self-Assessment of readiness
Discuss goals and action planning
Gather questions and confusions

22. Reading Module Agenda Process the Application Activity
Evidence-based RTI practices in reading
Practice progress monitoring administration
Oral Reading Fluency
Maze
Progress monitoring & data entry
Practice data entry
Review decision making for each case
Case studies
Discuss Application Activity

23. Interventions Five areas Phonemic Awareness Phonics Vocabulary Fluency
Comprehension

24. Interactive Table of Contents

26. Writing Module Agenda RTI implementation status reports
Process the Application Activity
Activating prior knowledge – RTI Bingo
Evidence-based RTI practices in writing
Universal screening
Intervention
Progress monitoring
Practice progress monitoring scoring
Case studies
Discuss Application Activity

27. Interventions Six Areas Comprehensive Strategies Beginning Writing
Handwriting
Spelling
Editing
Planning
Fluency
Comprehensive Strategies

29. Math Module Agenda Round robin problem solving for RTI
Evidence-based RTI practices in math
Universal screening
Intervention
Intervention fidelity
Progress monitoring
Establishing goals challenge activity
Math case studies
Discuss Application Activity

30. Interventions Whole Group Strategies for Tiers I & II Six Areas
Number sense
Arithmetic
Fluency
Problem Solving
Reasoning
Mnemonic Strategies

32. Behavior Module Agenda
School-wide Positive Behavior Supports (Tier I)
Evidence-based RTI practices in behavior management
Universal screening
Intervention
Functional behavioral assessment
Behavior intervention planning
Progress monitoring
Discuss application activity

33. Interventions Class or School Interventions for Tiers I & II
Four Areas
Antecedent Modifications
Replacement Behaviors
Consequence Modifications
Self-Monitoring

35. Wrap-Up Agenda SARTII Case Presentations Forms and Documents Planning
Discussion

36. Researching the Program
Participant Perceptions
Researcher Perceptions
School Readiness Ratings
Rubric Evaluation of Permanent Products
Team Interview Data

37. Course Participants
Total Number of Participants Who Completed Course N=58
Elementary Participants N=36
Middle & High Participants N=22

38. Outcome Data – Self-Report Ratings
Prior to training, only 20.6% of participants reported at least a competent level of understanding of RTI.
Post-training, 89.7% reported a competent level of understanding.
Significantly higher rates of understanding found (t= , p<.001)

39. Outcome Data – Self-Report Ratings
Prior to training, only 15.5% of participants felt competent to implement RTI.
After the training, 82.8% of participants felt competent.
Significantly higher rates of skills reported (t= , p<.001)

40. Outcome Data – Self-Report Ratings
Prior to training, only 13.8% of participants felt competent to act as a resource to others.
After the training, 81% felt competent.
Significantly higher rates reported (t= , p<.001)

41. Outcome Data – Self-Report Ratings

42. Outcome Data – Self-Report Ratings

43. Outcome Data – Self-Report Ratings
Participants reported significantly higher agreement that the RTI model will help children in their school be more successful (t=-8.045, p=.016).

44. Outcome Data – Redelivery (2/2009)
Format of Redelivery
Percentage of Schools
School-wide whole-group training
31%
Grade-level team trainings
77%
Individual consultation
Posting on intranet or distributing handouts
Other: Weekly RTI support meeting 7%
87% of schools (13/15) did some form of redelivery
One additional school had 100% participation

45. Researcher Perceptions Enabling Factors
District & principal support
Group discussion opportunities
Application activities
Case studies – saw improvement
Consistent team membership
Thoughtful selection of team membership
Collaborative nature of the team
Technology support
Voluntary participants
Flexibility of implementation

46. Researcher Perceptions Disabling Factors
Participants were “voluntold”
Teams had limited administrative support
Resistance to change/inflexible structures
Too much content, too little time
Competing district initiatives
Location of training
Lack of resources and information for high school students (only 1 of 5 high schools completed training)
Flexibility of implementation – looking for district-wide guidance

47. Outcome Data - SARTII Self-Assessment of RTI Implementation (SARTII)*
Status Ratings:
Not Started (The activity occurs 0% of the time)
Just Started (The activity occurs 1 to 24% of the time)
In Progress (The activity occurs 25 to 74% of the time)
Achieved (The activity occurs 75 to 100% of the time)
Maintaining (continues to occur 75 to 100% of the time)
*Adapted from the IL-ASPIRE SAPSI v. 1.6
Center for School Evaluation, Intervention and Training (CSEIT) Loyola University Chicago, Florida Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project (SAPSI Fall, 2007),
& North Carolina Comprehensive Assessment of Need (NCCAN)

48. Outcome Data – SARTII Consensus
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

49. Outcome Data – SARTII Infrastructure
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

50. Outcome Data – SARTII Infrastructure
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

51. Outcome Data – SARTII Infrastructure
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

52. Outcome Data – SARTII Infrastructure
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

53. Outcome Data – SARTII Infrastructure
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

54. Outcome Data – SARTII Implementation
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

55. Outcome Data – SARTII Implementation
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

56. Outcome Data – SARTII Implementation
Maintaining
Achieved
In Progress
Just Started
Not Started

57. Outcome Data – SARTII Growth over time in all areas, except…
Perception of district level support initially increased, but has since decreased
Change in personnel
Funding
Less growth in involving parents
Schools reported collecting data on consensus
Unsure of the means of data collection – survey?

58. Referral Data
Manual Released
Training Occurred

59. Referral Data

60. Rubric Ratings Over Time
Though the participant schools began at a higher level of competency, their rate of growth significantly exceeded that of nonparticipating schools, F(1,23)=14.81 , p<.005.

61. Rubric Analysis Strengths Weaknesses Tier II intervention plans
Universal screening
Tier III intervention plans
Form is present
The target is identified
Baseline is appropriate
Clearly identified appropriate interventions
Interventionist identified
Results reported
Weaknesses
Tier II intervention plans
Form
Baseline data
Progress monitoring plan
Goal Setting (Tiers II & III)
Sticking to review dates
Fidelity review
Documentation of referral for evaluation
Intervention Review Team
Rubric range 0-56

62. Interview Data: Team Members
Assistant Principal
Counselor
School Psychologist
Special Education Teacher(s)
Regular Education Teacher(s)
EIP Teacher(s)

63. Interview Data How did everyone in your school become knowledgeable about the RTI process?
RTI Institute
Redelivered training
To the entire faculty and staff
In smaller groups
“On-the-job training… learn while you work the process!”
School-based RTI teams (composed of reps from each grade)
Monthly grade-level meetings
Information provided through s and online

64. Interview Data How on board with RTI would you consider your faculty and staff?
“I’m not sure that they like it, but they’re doing it”(1st grade teacher)
More on board with certain tiers than others
Consensus is increasing
As they see the process work
By finding ways to make the whole process more “doable” and, thus, acceptable
By requiring staff members to present students who were in need of help to the RTI committee (e.g., their “two lowest in the class”)
Ways consensus could be improved
If there were explicit rules from the county about what to do
If there was more accountability; administration could help with this

65. Interview Data Are the right personnel involved with RTI?
Yes
Every grade-level/subject area is represented
Every “area” (e.g., counselors, EIP teachers, psychologists)
Diverse membership helps in the problem-solving process
Previous years’ teachers provide history and context
Decisions can be made because the right people are at the meeting No
Not all schools have a regular education teacher from each grade-level involved with RTI

66. Interview Data Describe Any Changes You’ve Seen in How Your School Looks at Tier I Data.
Data are accessible to teachers
Data are available in a timely manner
“We now look at data from more than one program, including benchmarks, STAR, GRASP, and DIBELS, at regular intervals and move students up to Tier II when needed.” (5th grade teacher)
“Progress monitoring data is used to direct and reform instruction.” (Assistant Principal)

67. Interview Data Describe Any Changes You’ve Seen in How Your School Looks at Tier II/III Data.
Don’t just go by teacher opinion anymore
Meetings occur at regular intervals
Data are analyzed at each meeting
Modifications to goals are made as needed
Interventions are modified/changed if they are not working
“We have more tools to use as interventions so that we have better data” (4th grade teacher)

68. Interview Data What Noticeable Changes in Classroom Practices Have There Been Since RTI Was Implemented?
Frequent progress monitoring
More interventions to address specific deficits
More creative use of time- finding time during the day for intervention
Altered schedules to create an extra class period
Teachers provide intervention in their areas of strength
Increased awareness of behavioral difficulties
collecting behavioral data
figuring out the reasons behind behavior
more aware of and involved in creating BIP’s

69. Interview Data What keeps the RTI process from functioning optimally at your school?
Not enough…
Time (also, time management issues)
Money
Manpower
Resources or identified strategies
People who have knowledge and/or experience with the RTI process
Staff development time/day
Accountability

70. Interview Data What Keeps the RTI Process from Functioning Optimally at Your School?
Student absences/transiency
Group management issues
individuals in each group progress at different rates which often results in the need for changes in groups and creation of new groups
The time it takes to get a student into tier III or IV,
especially for students who have significant issues
Lack of increased/intensive intervention once the student moves into Tier III

71. Interview Data What Would Help Your School Do RTI Better?
More…
Time for the 3 P’s: planning, providing interventions, and progress monitoring!
Money: to purchase resources/interventions and to fund interventionists
Manpower: people to provide and monitor interventions
Experience in actually implementing the process
Intervention resources/updated intervention bank
Staff development: days and trainings
Psychologist involvement: time to observe, test, and offer suggestions, support, and interventions

72. Interview Data What Would Help Your School Do RTI Better?
Better support system overall
A person at each school whose sole responsibility is RTI
A person at each grade level who has the time to be primarily responsible for RTI at that grade level
Better communication
about available resources
with other schools in the county
with school systems who are doing RTI well
Expanded use of certain programs (e.g., Orton-Gillingham for groups in all grade-levels)
Explicit guidance from the county office

73. Moving Forward Plans Obstacles Continue to support school efforts
Share our assessment results with the District
Establish a collaborative relationship with new district personnel
Obstacles
Balancing individual teacher needs with collective goals of the school/district
Nonparticipating teams are at a disadvantage
Consensus in some schools has been hard to establish
New district personnel assigned to RTI

74. Exploring the CD

75. Questions

76. Contact Us Michelle.Bolling@carrollcountyschools.com