Presentation on theme: "Connecticuts Response to Intervention (RtI) Model (A Status Report) January 2008 Prepared by: Dr. Karen A. Costello East Lyme Public Schools East Lyme,"— Presentation transcript:
Connecticuts Response to Intervention (RtI) Model (A Status Report) January 2008 Prepared by: Dr. Karen A. Costello East Lyme Public Schools East Lyme, CT 06333 860-691-4563
The Background Behind RtI Models: Federal Legislation No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)(2001) ensures academic growth and achievement for all children regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) (2004) and IDEA Regulations (2005) ensures free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.
Traditional SPED Identification Models Flawed General Educators Repertoire of Instructional Strategies Ineffective
Connecticuts RtI Model Connecticuts Decision: The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) decided to form a Scientifically Based Research Interventions (SRBI) State-Leadership Advisory Panel. The term SRBI is used because RtI models are DEPENDENT on interventions in which evidence is available to attest to their effectiveness.
SRBI State-Leadership Advisory Panel Responsibility: Review current research and practice on RtI in order to develop a state model that will be implemented in school districts.
TIMELINE November 2006 Interim Commissioner appoints an advisory panel Associate Commissioners co-chair 39 member panel June 7 Input from Advisory Panel regarding timeline
Timeline (continued) June - August 2007 Meet at least 3 times to review work. September 2007 Advisory Panel to review draft of full document. (occurred in Oct.) Executive Summary (occurred in Oct.) distribution to the field, including PD Plan for 07-08 (has not occurred).
Timeline (continued) October 2007 Presentation to the Connecticut State Board of Education (has not occurred). November 2007 Disseminate full document to the field (has not occurred). Explore campus-based meetings with Institutes of Higher Education.
Connecticuts Commissioner of Education invited 169 local districts leadership teams to a Literacy Summit
Summit Message: We Have A Reading Problem In Connecticut Many entering K students do not have expected language and literacy skills. [Kindergarten Inventory (language &Literacy)]* CMT, CAPT & NAEP reading scores continue to be flat over the past decade. [CMT Reading, CAPT Reading Across the Disciplines & NAEP]* Students with disabilities and English language learners perform at very low levels. [CMT]* Many regular education students fail to meet state goal in reading across grades. [CMT and CAPT]* *Indicators [ ]
Message (continued) There are persistent large gaps in performance between non-poor and poor students and between white and their black and Hispanic classmates. [CMT]* Female students outperform male students, particularly at the secondary level. [CMT]* *Indicators [ ]
Connecticuts PreK – 16 RtI Model Three Tiered Model Tier I Decision Making Tier II Tier III Decision Making SPED Identification
Tier I Decision Making Ensure appropriateness of general ed curriculum and instruction; consistency and fidelity of implementation. Early identification of individual children with academic or behavioral difficulties. Decision Making SPED Identification Common benchmark assessments (2-3x yr) and progress monitoring Comprehensive/differentiated instruction in key academic domains, informed by scientific research Continuum of positive behavioral supports Effective school and district leadership Ongoing professional development Adequate availability of assessment and instructional resources Adequate human resources Professional learning communities (PLCs) Materials and instruction at childrens instructional levels
Tier II SPED Identification Analysis, interpretation, and application of screening and benchmark data. Decision Making Tier II Supplemental Frequent progress monitoring (e.g. biweekly) Additional supplemental instruction (e.g. 2-4 x a week) Individual/small group instruction (e.g. no larger than 5 students) Homogeneous grouping of students with similar needs/at similar levels.
Tier III Decision Making Tier III SPED Identification Analysis, interpretation, and application of data from Tier II interventions; comprehensive evaluations of individual children as appropriate Customization and Intensity Increases - More intensive supplemental intervention (e.g. daily). - Very frequent progress monitoring (e.g., weekly) - Individual/small group (e.g. no larger than 3 students) - Homogeneous grouping
Critical Terminology Scientifically Research Based Intervention (SRBI) …emphasis on providing more effective instruction for all children (primarily in the general educators classroom) through sound core curricula in key academic areas and positive behavioral supports, as well as through early interventions for youngsters experiencing learning or behavioral difficulties, using core curricula and interventions that are research- based as much as possible.
Critical Terminology (continued) Fidelity of Implementation: use and delivery of curricula, instructional strategies, behavioral systems, and interventions in the manner they were designed and intended to be used, for example, adhering to the treatment time and key features required for a particular intervention.
Critical Terminology (continued) Progress Monitoring: using data to track students progress toward a goal. Universal Screening (common assessments): measures that are the same for all students within a grade in a school or district and that are administered to all of those on a routine basis.
Critical Terminology (continued) Formative Assessments: assessments that are done during the process of student learning and are used primarily to inform instruction. Professional Learning Communities (PLC): Small groups of educators who assemble frequently to discuss the following questions included in school improvement plans (R. Dufour, Middle School Journal, September, 2007):
PLC Questions 1. Are we clear on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions each student is to acquire as a result of this course, grade level, and unit we are about to teach? 2. Have we agreed on the criteria we will use in assessing the quality of student work, and can we apply the criteria consistently?
PLC Questions (continued) 3. Have we developed common formative assessments to monitor each students learning on a timely basis? 4. Do we use the formative assessments to identify students who are having difficulty in their learning so that we can provide those students with timely systematic interventions that guarantee them additional time and support for learning until they have become proficient?
PLC Questions (continued) 5. Do we have data to assess our individual and collective effectiveness? Do assessment results help us learn from one another in ways that positively affect our classroom practice? 6. Does our team work interdependently to achieve SMART goals that are Strategic (linked to school goals), Measurable, Attainable, Results-oriented (focused on evidence of student learning rather teacher strategies), and Time-bound?
PLC Questions (continued) 7. Are continuous improvement processes built into our routine work practice? 8. Do we make decisions by building shared knowledge regarding best practices rather than simply pooling opinions? 9. Do we demonstrate, through our collective efforts, our determination to help all students learn at high levels?
PLC Questions (continued) 10. Do we use our collaborative team to focus on these critical issues? If the Answer is YES to the questions…
…Then, we are moving towards SYSTEMIC REFORM of EDUCATION… The Intent of RtI to reduce Special Education Referrals
Next Steps in Connecticut… February - April 2008: Dissemination of the Executive Summary Major State-wide Conference Regional Conferences Consistent Message Spring 2008: RtI Guidelines must be available to all 169 districts.
Next Steps in Connecticut… Summer - Fall 2008: Full document distributed January 2009: Implementation in 169 school districts