Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

BUILDING LEVEL TEAMS RtI: Gap Guzzling Fundamental Assumptions There is a need for Special Education, but not as it currently exists. Education has not.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "BUILDING LEVEL TEAMS RtI: Gap Guzzling Fundamental Assumptions There is a need for Special Education, but not as it currently exists. Education has not."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 BUILDING LEVEL TEAMS RtI: Gap Guzzling

3 Fundamental Assumptions There is a need for Special Education, but not as it currently exists. Education has not done well by students of diverse backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, and languages Too much time has been spent admiring problems. The best place to address diverse learning needs is in the instructional process.

4 If you want to change and improve the climate and outcomes of schooling – both for students and teachers, there are features of the school culture that have be to changed, and if they are not changed, your well intentioned efforts will be defeated. Seymore Sarason 1996

5

6 School Improvement Activity What are your current SI Goals? What content is covered in the current professional development plan? What problems or issues often come up at your school?

7 The last 30 years of American Public Education can be characterized by remarkable sameness of approach and remarkable flatness of performance. Joel Klein Chancellor, NYC Schools

8 “It is not the pace of change that is the culprit, it is the piecemealness and fragmentation what wears us down.” Fallan, 2003 Piecemealness

9 Essential Components of PS/RTI An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery; A problem-solving method; and Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery

10 Response Components of RTI Student problems must be identified accurately Student responses that reflect those problems must be assessed in a relaible and valid manner

11 This is not about another new “initiative” This is about integrating what we know works!

12 Are We “Every Ed” Yet?: A National Perspective CASE National Survey – 424 Districts – 14% West, 18% Northeast, 32% Midwest, 37% South Conducted March 7-18, 2008 Margin of Error +/- 4.6%, 95% Confidence Level

13 Findings 32% of districts expect full implementation by % of districts have a “defined RtI process”—53% do not 71% of districts report that implementation is led by general education or a joint general ed/special ed effort Only 29% of districts report that it is a special ed effort

14 Findings 71% of districts report that they are using RtI for ALL students. 29% report that they are using it primarily to identify students for specialized services. Implementation is primarily with elementary levels (67%), with 27% implementing at middle schools and 16% at high schools 67% report planning to implement at middle and 49% report planning to implement at high school level.

15 Findings 84% of districts report implementation for reading, 53% for math and 44% for behavior. 96% of districts report that RtI has not been the focus of any legal proceedings.

16 Findings Impact on employment – 75% of districts report no change in staff FTE – 22% of districts report increase in staff FTE – 3% of districts report decrease in staff FTE 52% of districts report Tier 3 services for both general and special education students. 48% report Tier 3 services primarily for special education students

17 Is It All About Reading? Yes! 52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs 70% +/- of special education “activities” (e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases 94% of students in LD because of reading/language arts 46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast majority of special education “activities”

18 Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000) Acceleration rates about.04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998) Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind. Effect size for LD programs is.29 (Reschly) It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

19 PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS CURRENT SYSTEM – PROCESS ABOVE RESULTS CURRENT SYSTEM – WAIT TO FAIL MODEL DUAL SYSTEM- GENERAL AND SPECIAL INADEQUATE PARENT OPTIONS AND RECOURSE CULTURE OF COMPLIANCE

20 PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS (CONT) IDENTIFICATION METHODS LACK VALIDITY BETTER TEACHER PREPARATION NEEDED RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE AND BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVES NOT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.

21 PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION SPECIAL EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOCUS ON RESULTS – NOT ON PROCESS EMBRACE A MODEL OF PREVENTION NOT FAILURE CONSIDER CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AS GENERAL EDUCATON CHILDREN FIRST

22 Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special Education Excedrin Headache #1 for Special Education!

23 Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000) Acceleration rates about.04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998) Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind. Effect size for LD programs is.29 (Reschly) It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

24 Status of Reauthorization- IDEA 2004 Title: “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act” Passed House in 2003, Senate in 2004 Signed by President Bush in December. IN EFFECT July 1, 2005 Regulations August, 2006

25 IDEA 2004 CHANGES : Eligibility Determinations A child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if determinant factor is:  Lack of scientifically-based instructional practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction.  Lack of instruction in math  Limited English Proficiency

26 IDEA 2004 Changes Specific Learning Disabilities The LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

27 Regulations § Specific learning disabilities. (a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with § , criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State-- (1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10); (2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and (3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10).

28 Regulations (b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§ through (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.

29 Regulations § Specific documentation for the eligibility determination. (a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as required in § (a)(2), must contain a statement of-- (1) Whether the child has a specific learning disability; (7) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention-– (i) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected; and (ii) The documentation that the child’s parents were notified about-- (A) The State’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided; (B) Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning;

30 Federal LAW Gave YOU A Choice! ( 6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES- (A)IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, the local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. (B)ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process which determines if a child responds to scientific, research- based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures in paragraphs (2) and (3). NEW YORK STATE LAW: PHASE OUT OF DISCREPANCY MODEL BY 2012

31 What we know  We know far more about the causes of learning disability and reading problems  We know more about effective instruction  We know more about the limitations of our current systems and have viable alternatives  It is not so much the issue any longer of “what works?”  It is an issue of how we deploy it so that it can work.

32 RtI: Whachamacallit Problem Solving Model-TAT/SAT School Improvement/Safe & Civil School – Review, Revise, Adopt, Implement Action Research Gap Analysis Circle of Inquiry Audit Baldridge – Plan, Do, Study, Act

33 Paradigm Shift FROM: Eligibility focus – Diagnose and Place – Get label TO: Outcome focus – Problem Solving and Response to Intervention – Get help

34 Instruction: The absolute place to start! How effective is the instruction in your classroom, building, district?

35 Tier I Universal instruction to all students Is the core curriculum effective (80% or 90% of students making benchmarks)? Which students are at-risk for failure? Does any over-representation of particular student groups exist in those students identified at risk?

36 Decisions Made Related to Tier I Level of effectiveness and levels of over- representation (or disproportionality) If evidence for either exists, modifications must be made to the core instructional programs. If core instruction is both effective and equitable, then tier 2 (supplemental) interventions are provided to those students identified as “at-risk”

37 Tier II Interventions delivered to smaller groups either in general education classroom or outside of general education classroom Interventions must be provided in addition to core instruction. Academic Engaged Time (AET) predicts achievement better than any other variable

38 Tier II Focus on particular skill areas that need strengthening Progress monitoring of students performance is conducted frequently with same measures used to assess Tier I performance Effective Tier II intervention-approximately 70% of students should have a positive response and will reach benchmark performance A small percent will not respond to Tier II levels of instruction and will require the most intensive instruction (Tier III)

39 Tier III Developed based on student needs following a problem solving process that will use diagnostic assessment to inform intervention development Progress monitoring of intervention effectiveness is the same as Tier III as Tier II Does not mean more of what is not working at Tier II unless you are seeing positive gains

40 Characteristics of Tier III Interventions Delivered in very small groups or to students individually Must be provided in addition to Tier I instruction.- does not supplant the core instruction Should be receiving the most instructional minutes.

41 Characteristics of Tier III Interventions Interventions focus more narrowly on defined skill areas. Most minutes of instruction Smallest number of children in the group Most opportunities to respond and receive corrective feedback Most practice Most powerful motivational support

42 Implementing Response to Intervention Three Phases of Implementation  Consensus Building (Commitment)-80% buy-in  Infrastructure Development  Implementation

43 Steps in Implementing School Wide Assessment to Assist in Improving Outcomes for All Students? Establish benchmarks (performance standards) at various points in time for various skills Identify effectiveness of Universal Instruction (Tier I) Identify Needs for Tier II Identify at-risk students to receive Tier II or III interventions Progress monitoring (Tiers I, II and III)

44 Establish Benchmarks (Performance Standards) at Various Points in Time for Various Skills Benchmark= average performance or level of performance that predicts success (e.g., ISAT or behavior standard) Occur at least three times per year (fall, winter, and spring) Assessment method should be time efficient to administer and score

45 School Wide Assessment Strategies

46 Behavior Variable Office discipline referrals Tardiness Attendance Homework Completion levels/rates Teacher implemented procedures Others?  Upload to database monthly

47 Academic Variables Curriculum based measurement Using probes (brief assessments) to measure student performance. Dynamic- sensitive to change Indicators- overall performance (health) Skill- specific observable and measurable behavior

48 Math Variables Digits correct per minute (add, subtract etc.) Numbers identified per minute These are indicators! Not achievement measures!

49 Spelling Variables Letter sequences correct per minute B-o-y- These are indicators not achievement measures.

50 Writing Variables Correct word sequences These are indicators not achievement measures.

51 Reading Variables Initial sounds correct Rate of decoding pseudowords words Oral reading rate (WRCPM) Letter naming Rate of breaking words down into sounds These are indicators not achievement measures!

52 The High School Solution: Building Continuously Improving Tier 1 General Education Instruction ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% Use of Teaching Routines and Learning Strategies (Kansas) Well-Designed Curriculum with a “Big Ideas” Focus or Ability to “Distill” Curriculum to Big Ideas Effective Secondary Classroom Management Study and Organizational Skills Curriculum Modification

53 Problem Solving A process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention plans that improve significantly the school performance of students

54 Problem Solving Process Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary

55 Problem Solving Can be applied to the student, classroom, building, district, and problem levels  Student- academic and/or behavior problem  Classroom- discipline, returning homework  Building- bullying, attendance  District- over-/under-representation  Problem- problem common to students in building

56 What is ‘ Response to Intervention (RtI) ’ ? ( Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005) Identifying and providing high quality instruction and research-based interventions matched to students needs Measuring rate of improvement (ROI) over time to make important educational decisions Educators use ongoing student performance data to determine if an intervention is working. If it is not, it is time to do something different.

57 Ten Things We Have Done Wrong! 1 st Year (or 2)… Woes Insufficient Time to Plan or Meet 2. No Building Administrator 3. No Designated Facilitator- Roles Defined 4. No Standard Protocol for Intervention 5. Not Sticking to the Prob. Solving Steps 6. Insufficient Staff Development/Consensus 7. Not Using Researched Based Programs 8. Not Gathering Data Prior to the Meeting 9. Decisions Not Data Based 10. Assuming Special Education is an Intervention

58 BANG HEAD HERE

59 WHAT IS A 3-TIERED MODEL OF INTERVENTIONS? Standard Protocol

60 Use Researched-based, Scientifically Validated 3 Tiers of Intervention/Instruction Frameworks for thinking and planning

61 The High School Solution: Building Continuously Improving Tier 1 General Education Instruction ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% Use of Teaching Routines and Learning Strategies (Kansas) Well-Designed Curriculum with a “Big Ideas” Focus or Ability to “Distill” Curriculum to Big Ideas Effective Secondary Classroom Management Study and Organizational Skills Curriculum Modification

62 Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and Language Arts) TIER 1: Universal Interventions- Core reading instruction that ALL students receive ( minutes daily) The focus at this level is on providing a strong classroom-level comprehensive core reading program (CCRP).

63 Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and Language Arts) TIER 2: Target Interventions - 30 minutes of daily small group reading instruction that students who do not score at benchmark on screening assessment receive. In addition to core reading program Small group (3-5 students), pull out, similar needs More intense instruction and monitoring Focus on reading areas of need weeks of intervention

64 Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and Language Arts) TIER 3: Intensive Interventions - 60 minutes of daily small group reading instruction that students who do not make adequate progress in Tier 2 Instruction receive (in addition to core reading instruction) Students receive longer term, intensive instructional interventions designed to increase their rate of progress. Consideration for special education services might occur at this level.

65 Example of 3-Tier Level Interventions Time Curricula r Focus Curricula r Breadth Frequency of Progress Monitoring Tier I 90 5 areas Core 3X Yearly or greater Tier Less than 5 Core + Supplemental Monthly or greater Tier or less Core + Supplemental + Intensive Weekly Reading

66 Key Skills Sets for Secondary Support (http://www.ku-crl.org/)

67 Example Tier 2 and 3: Targeted / Group ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% Levels of Problem- Solving

68 How do we know what to use? Websites for Scientifically Based Reading Interventions Florida Center for Reading Research: Oregon Reading First Center: reading.uoregon.edu Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts: Fcrr reports

69 Phontis and Phenell Michael Heggerty INTENSIVE PHONICS CLASSROOM-WIDE FLUENCY RIGBY SIMS 80% REGULAR ED. MUST MEET OR EXCEED- OTHERWISE FIX THIS FIRST FRAMEWORK for READING INTERVENTIONS K PALS EAROBICS GREAT LEAPS SRA- corrective reading Read Naturally PALS--GR 2-6 MY BREAKFAST READING PROGRAM Pass Key Lexia Reading Plus 70% Benchmarking K PALS M. HEGGERTY PROGRAM / SRA DI PROGRAMS- READING MASTERY, HORIZONS, CORRECTIVE READING EAROBBICS GREAT LEAPS /S LANT REWARDS 6 MIN. SOLUTIONS REPEATED PHRASES REPEATED READINGS READ 180 TIER I. TIER II. At-risk students- Supplemental interventions TIER III. Highly at-risk students Intensive interventions Students identified through data. PS team matches students to appropriate intervention- teacher, aide. More intensive individual support-

70

71 Administrator Resources Finance Resources Facilities

72 Finance Title I Title II A Teacher Quality Title II D Technology Title V Innovative Programs Reading Improvement Block Grant

73 Resources Grants Personnel

74 Facilities Every Available Space

75 What will we do when students don’t learn? Established RTI Team Each grade level structured time for supplemental and intensive instruction Determined personnel to provide instruction  Teachers from all areas supporting content teachers Selected set of “standard treatments” Developed “exit” criteria

76 Monitor Student Performance For Tiered groups, we need to monitor progress probably weekly or once every couple weeks We need to use our data to determine the effectiveness of our instruction We need to change instructional programs that are not working

77 Monitor Student Performance For tiered groups, progress should be monitored frequently (weekly or bi-weekly) Graph the data  Demonstrates progress over time Review the data to determine the effectiveness of instruction  Are my students learning and applying what I am teaching?  Are my students ready to move forward in the curriculum?  Is the intervention strong enough (meeting goal)? Change instructional programs that are not working

78 Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention? Good Response  Gap is closing  Can extrapolate point at which target student will “come in range” of peers--even if this is long range Questionable Response  Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening  Gap stops widening but closure does not occur Poor Response  Gap continues to widen with no change in rate. Batsche, G.M. (2007)

79 Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions Positive, Questionable, Poor Response Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)  Positive  Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at least).  Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional independence.  Questionable  Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.  Poor  Return to problem solving for new intervention Batsche, G.M. (2007)

80 Questionable or Poor Response to Intervention I nstructional Program Change Re-teach certain skills Re-group: Move into a smaller group Increase instructional time Change instructional strategy

81 Decision Rules: Criteria for Special Education Eligibility Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance The Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmark Student is not a functionally independent learner Batsche, G.M. (2007)

82 Decision Making - Graphs Consider changing/intensifying interventions if 3 data points are below the aimline or goal line Use at least 6 data points when making placement decisions If possible, review multiple types of data and integrate (Triangulate your Data)

83 Progress Monitoring: Closing the Gap

84 Progress Monitoring: Gap Widening

85 Progress Monitoring Gap Remains the Same

86 On-task Behavior Graph

87 Behavior Occurrences Graph

88 Using Data to Develop Goals What is the student’s current performance level? What is the student’s growth rate?  Weekly average rate of improvement.  (Ending score(s) less beginning score(s) / number of weeks of data Determine growth rate for low risk students  DIBELS norms, AimsWeb norms, national norms, local norms Establish a goal that reduces the discrepancy between actual performance level and desired performance level  Current level of performance + (desired weekly rate of improvement X # of weeks until goal).

89 Determining Student’s Rate of Growth - Example Student’s Weekly Growth Rate: Ending score less beginning score divided by # of weeks. (30-16)/16 =.875 words per week Low Risk Students’ Weekly Growth Rate: (68-44)/16 = 1.5 words per week

90 Data Days…In God we trust…everyone else bring data

91 Components of the Infrastructure Building-based Leadership Team Data Coach Problem-solving Process Decision Rules Regarding RtI Data Sources and Decision-Making Tier 1 Focus Standard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2 Intervention Support and Fidelity Technology Support Technical Assistance

92 Sustaining the Infrastructure Sustaining requires Documentation  Procedures Manual  Decision Rules  Forms that reflect and GUIDE the procedures  Nested in District Policy and Procedures  Reflected in professional educator evaluation criteria

93 DATA DAY- What is it? ½ Day 3X a year- handout Standard Protocol – Entrance/Exit Criteria (3 points of data)  Reading Level and/or ISAT  Teacher Recommendation- Form  DIBELS/AIMSWEB Benchmarking  Progress Monitoring Graphs

94 Effective Problem Solving Teams

95 Monthly Problem/ Solving Team Meetings Same team as Data Day Team ½ day approx. 1X monthly (4-6 Weeks) Individual problem solving w/ parent  Tier III students and teacher referral students Teacher Referral Binder (K-6 & 7-8) Teacher Interview Prior to Individual Child PST Meeting

96 Individual Problem Solving: Team Meetings Data Coach brings to meetings: Progress monitoring graph(s) Calculator Norms Growth rates for low-risk students Growth rate for student(s)

97 Grade Level Data Meetings Data coach brings to meetings: Progress monitoring graphs for each student in tier II or tier III Calculator Norms Growth rates for low risk students Benchmark scores for all students (sorted from lowest to highest Teacher recommendations

98 Evaluation- Rule of Thumb How do we know it’s working? IF 80% of student population are meeting or exceeding on ISAT and local assessments…. THEN as a rule of thumb 70% of intervention students are making benchmark

99 Evaluate RTI Evaluation Self Studies and Surveys

100 Websites to Note

101 “I suggest that diverse learners face on a daily basis the tyranny of time, in which the educational clock is ticking while they remain at risk of falling further and further behind in their schooling. Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don't fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46, The Tyranny of Time

102 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Dr. Barb Curl Dr. Sharon Vaughn Dr. David Tilly Dr. Mark Shinn Ms. Judy Hackett Dr. Judy Elliot International Reading Association Dr. G. Batsche Dr. Joseph Torgesen Dr. Sally Shaywitz Florida Center for Reading Research Ms. Melissa Ward We would like to thank the following institutions and/or individuals for their wisdom and select slides for this presentation.

103 Flowchart For Problem Resolution Don’t Mess With It! YES NO YES YOU IDIOT! NO Will it Blow Up In Your Hands? NO Look The Other Way Anyone Else Knows? You’re SCREWED! YES NO Hide It Can You Blame Someone Else? NO NO PROBLEM! Yes Is It Working? Did You Mess With It?

104 Contact Information Meg Thurman, Director of Special Ed. or Michele Jacobs, Principal


Download ppt "BUILDING LEVEL TEAMS RtI: Gap Guzzling Fundamental Assumptions There is a need for Special Education, but not as it currently exists. Education has not."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google