1. Wisconsin Evaluation

2. Background of Wisconsin RtI Center
2010
Academic and Behavior Focused
Funded by Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

3. Data Collected

4. Data Questions, Reporting…
How many/which schools have been trained?
If we train schools, do they implement what we trained them in?
Do schools implement with fidelity?
Are they sustaining implementation?
Do students benefit?
Do all students benefit?

5. PBIS/Behavior data Training/networking Implementation Data ODR
TIC, SAS, SET, BoQ, BAT, MATT
ODR
Recognition applications
PBIS Eval
Access state reported suspension data

6. Academic Data Training/Networking attendance
School-wide Implementation Review (SIR)
All Staff SIR
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE)

7. Academic
Training
Implementation
Full Implementation
Outcomes
Behavior
Fidelity

8. Internal
Coaching, training, behavioral expertise
External
Political support, funding, policy, visibility

9. Internal Use
All data is housed in central, online,database with WI RtI Center
Standard reports that staff can use for Regional, District, School-level supports
Shared with CESAs every 2 months
RtI Center meetings every 2 months.
Use data to drive decisions/prioritize at Center meetings.
Shared regionally with coaches quarterly

10. Sharing Data Quarterly State Leadership Team Annual Report Newsletter
Share data with them
Get input on work
Take the information back to their representative organizations (state dept, family groups, universities, administrator associations, etc)
Annual Report
Initially shared with SLT each October, published on our website
Newsletter
Quarterly newsletter highlights aspects of this data

11. Examples of our Data Use/Presentation

12. We Use trainings to show evidence that schools are working to implement the mlss – these numbers represent teams, not individuals
This shows continued growth in participation and that school are attending mutiple trainings showing a deeper level of comittment
WE are adding to the training menu, the Universal Mathematics Review – being offered statewide next year
Also, we are working to create supports in the area of Intervening Effecitvely – establishing an effective systemwide intervening process
IN addition, we are working this year (one of our strategic goals) to determine an integrated recocmmended scope and sequence of trainings including CRP and behavior

15. As you recall, and just as a reminder, the Schoolwide Implementation Review is a way for schools to a self assess their current level of implementation of RtI components. It gives them one piece of information to help action plan and measure their efforts
It gives us some data to show to what degree our schools working to implement the framework of RtI.
This graphs shows the continued growth of the use of the SIR by school leadership teams.
Reading is in blue, math is in red

16. Looking at all the SIRs completed, we can get an idea a statewide picture of implementation
This shows us that schools feel further along in implementation in READING vs MATH (more schools at infrastructure and Initial Implementation in READING, while, more of them place themselves at at the beginning stages of implementation for math – see more at purpose

18. RedoAdd in overall averages.

19. This shows the growth in implementation (as reported by schools themselves). There are 202 school teams that completed the SIR both in and again in (as we intend for the SIR to be an annual tool to assess and plan from).
The data from those 202 – good news. We see growth in not only the overall scores but in each subscale score as well. But even with that growth, we still see most school just at infrastruture and initial implementation

20. PBIS Implementation as of June 30, 2013
Implementing
Fidelity

21. One expectation and goal for the state is equitable access across the state…

23. 50.6%
26.3%
Number of districts don’t align with DPI numbers as there are parochials, etc. that have been trained in PBIS, so we add a district number to them. Approximately 75% of the % are 5 or fewer schools. 25% have more than 6 school.
1 school = 33 = 26%
2-5 schools = 62 = 49%
6-9 schools = 17 = 13%
10+ = 13 = 10%

24. Sustaining…

26. Cumulative Yearly Suspension Rate for All Schools, Schools Not at Fidelity, and Schools at Fidelity from

27. Change in Race-Specific Suspension Rates from 2010-12

28. Future Directions More outcome data Look at data by cohorts more
Disproportionality
Behavior
Academic Achievement
Graduation
Attendance, etc.
Look at data by cohorts more
Improving our database to better track ODR data
Look at outcome data over time for schools implementing an integrated MTSS for academics and behavior