Presentation on theme: "Research tells us that 74% of children who are poor readers in third grade remain poor readers in ninth grade. (Francis et al. 1996) After age 12 rate."— Presentation transcript:
Research tells us that 74% of children who are poor readers in third grade remain poor readers in ninth grade. (Francis et al. 1996) After age 12 rate of progress levels off and children typically fall further behind (Shaywitz 1996) Reading is frustrating and affects attitudes and motivation to read.
8.7 million 4 th -12 th graders can’t cope with academic demands Students who stay “on track” in freshman year (earn 5 and no more than 1 F) are 3.5 times as likely to graduate.
According to the National Institute of Health It takes 4 times as long to intervene in 4 th as it does to intervene in late Kindergarten 4 th Grade Late Kindergarten 2 hours per day 30 mins./day
It is a process that will take time Develop consensus and establish a vision and belief system Develop and train the problem solving team Provide the rest of the staff with professional development in areas they feel weak
“Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re nomads, for crying out loud.” Do you see change as a detriment, a requirement, or as an opportunity?
Having a 3-tiered system of instruction and intervention Varying the intensity of instruction and intervention to meet students’ needs Using data measures for benchmarks and progress monitoring Using research-based academic and behavior interventions. Different system for determining eligibility. RTI is About
1.Providing high quality instruction and interventions matched to students needs ( Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005) Big Ideas of RTI Matched to student need Demonstrated through scientific research and practice to produce high learning rates for most students
2.Measuring rate of improvement (ROI) over time and level of performance to make important educational decisions ( Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005) Big Ideas of RTI A student’s growth in achievement or behavior competencies over time compared to baseline level A student’s relative standing on some dimension of achievement/ performance compared to expected performance
3.Identifying specific and effective research-based interventions for an individual ( Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005) Big Ideas of RTI Practices/Interventions that have been shown to be effective in improving children’s academic skills at a significant level
Catch students before they fail AYP and NCLB move focus from student labels to student progress ALL students need to reach benchmarks, regardless of labels Placements alone never guaranteed adequate progress Our expectations for a student should be based on their response to interventions, not on their performance on tests Tiers improve service efficiency Why RTI?
Before attempting to implement RTI practices, consensus building and a common set of beliefs/priorities have to be established … or else it is a lot like herding cats.
1. I believe that no child should be left behind. The State and Federal Government has said what is fair is not leaving ANY student behind. 95% of kids have to make benchmark by 2013. This happens through a tier model. Batsche, G. (2007) RtI: Sustaining the Model.
2. I believe that it is OK to provide differential services across students (i.e. grouping students based on skills not grade level). Intervention time should consist of grouping by skills not grade. Batsche, G. (2007) RtI: Sustaining the Model.
3. I believe that when there is an academic and/or behavior concern for a student that academic engaged time must be considered first. Academic Engagement Time is a better predictor than any other factor of academic success. This includes IQ and SES. If behavior is a concern, interventions should focus on increasing on-task behavior. Batsche, G. (2007) RtI: Sustaining the Model.
4. I believe decisions are best made with data. The ONLY way to separate kids with severe problems from those who are behind is response to intervention. RtI cannot be done without data. Batsche, G. (2007) RtI: Sustaining the Model.
5. I believe our expectations for student performance should be dependent upon a student’s response to intervention, not on the basis of a “score” that “predicts” what they are capable of doing. Under the “score/predict” model, which student qualifies for special education support based on scores alone. JohnnySallyWill IQ (Avg. = 85-115) 698976 Adaptive Score AdequateNAAdequate Reading Achieve- ment 75
The Vision Provide effective interventions to meet the needs of ALL students through early and scientifically-based interventions and careful systems planning
Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.
23 Grade level corresponding to age 1 2 3 4 Reading grade level 4 3 2 1 5 2.5 5.2 At Risk on Early Screening Low Risk on Early Screening 3.2 Control With research- based core but without extra instructional intervention 4.9 Intervention With substantial instructional intervention
Source: Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work. NAESP Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp.1,6.
Special Education General Education Sea of Ineligibility Amount of Resources Needed to Benefit Severity of Educational Need or Problem Traditional Approach to Service Delivery
Core + Intensive Core Weekly-Monthly Core + Supplemental 3x/year Weekly Amount of Resources Needed To Benefit Severity of Educational Need or Problem Bridging the Gap
Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems 5-10% 10-15% Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment-based High Intensity Of longer duration Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment-based Intense, durable procedures Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response 75-85% Universal Interventions All students Preventive, proactive Universal Interventions All settings, all students Preventive, proactive Focus on CORE CURRICULUM Enter a School-Wide Systems for Student Success
What we have been doing has not been predictably effective for ALL of our kids. If we want to become more effective, we can’t do the same things harder, faster or longer. We need to do different things that are more effective.
Work smarter...do less and get more Consolidate & prioritize Communicate Be strategic about problem solving
What is the problem? Why is it happening? What should be done about it? How do we ensure implementation integrity? Did it work?
1. Problem Identification 2. Problem Analysis 3. Plan Development 4. Plan Implementation 5. Plan Evaluation The Questions Lead to Decisions
Is your district meeting AYP at 80%? Tier One Universal Instruction
Core Interventions Options that are provided to students as a part of the general curriculum with specific intent. Comprehensive School Wide Intervention Tier 1
Strategic Interventions Targeted interventions focus on students who need more assistance Comprehensive School Wide Intervention Tier 1 Targeted Interventions Tier 2
Intensive Interventions Intense and often individualized interventions are for the smallest group of students with the most extreme needs Comprehensive School Wide Intervention Tier 1 TIER 3 Targeted Interventions Tier 2
It requires an expanded set of skills Change is uncomfortable Interventions are integrated, not done by team members or special educators only It can focus on OUR weaknesses rather than the students It requires good collaboration, communication and a common commitment to student success Student progress is ALL that matters Barriers to RTI
Batsche, G. (2006). Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Focusing on Improved Academic Achievement for ALL Students. Illinois State Board of Education. Batsche, G. et al. (2006). Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation. National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc: Virginia. Batsche, G. (2005). Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Maximizing Opportunities for Student Progression. LADSE. Illinois ASPIRE Training Modules (2006).
Florida Center for Reading Research: www.fcrr.orgwww.fcrr.org Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA; University of Oregon) http://reading.uoregon.edu/http://reading.uoregon.edu/ Oregon Reading First Center: http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/SIprograms.php http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/SIprograms.php Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts: www.texasreading.orgwww.texasreading.org Texas Reading Initiative: www.tea.state.tx.uswww.tea.state.tx.us University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning http://www.ku-crl.org/ http://www.ku-crl.org/ Positive Behavior Intervention Support: www.pbis.org, www.ebdnetwork-il.orgwww.pbis.org, www.ebdnetwork-il.org
Safe & Civil Schools: www.safeandcivilschools.comwww.safeandcivilschools.com Task Related Skills: Skills for School Success Curriculum & Associates What Works Clearinghouse www.w-w-c.orgwww.w-w-c.org I-ASPIRE – www.illinoisaspire.comwww.illinoisaspire.com Illinois State Board of Education - www.isbe.netwww.isbe.net National Research Center on learning disabilities – www.nrcid.org www.nrcid.org My Breakfast Reading Program (Interactive Phonics Activities) www.mybreakfastreadingprogram.com