2. Foundations for A Problem Solving, School-Wide Model Rhode Island Technical Assistance Project Summer Institute July 24 and 25, 2003 Correspondence about this presentation should be directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131. Email is dtilly@aea11.k12.ia.us, (515) 270-9030.dtilly@aea11.k12.ia.us

3. Overview of PS, SWM Objectives Communicate major components of a problem solving, school wide model Provide an integrative picture of the STRUCTURE Example effectiveness data on model implementation Provide a picture of the PROCESS of getting it all in place Begin to consider application in your setting

4. Keep Our Eye on The Prize 100 Percent of our students proficient by the year 13- 14

5. Vocabulary – Convergence of Thinking Problem Solving Model (PS): Proposed, implemented and refined since the early 80s in special education as an alternative system to the traditional Refer-Test-Place system. It encompasses both general education and special education systems. Initially was individual student focused. Response To Intervention (RTI) – Also called a Standard Treatment Approach (STA): Being proposed by researchers across the country as an alternative method for identifying individuals with Learning Disabilities. An opportunity to link IDEA thinking with NCLB thinking. School-Wide Model (SWM): An integrative way of thinking logically and rationally about meeting All childrens needs in a school. It represents a promising way for schools to comprehensively draw together and allocate their resources to meet childrens educational needs.

6. Important Point They are not different The represent different spins on the same core thinking by different people The same big components are there We will attempt to use these terms with precision for clarity sake

7. Important Point! Everything from here on out represents guidelines, not absolutes The problems are the same everywhere you go The principals for solving them are the same The SPECIFICS will be different in your setting Your solutions will differ from our solutions!!!!!!

8. PS, RTI, School Wide Model What it isWhat it is not Represents a way of: Using data to examine the system in relation to most important results. A panacea Structuring thinking so that we dont miss anything A curriculum, an intervention, one theoretical orientation Identifying strategies with a high probability of improving student performance and knowing if they work One size fits all Keeping our attention focused on the most important things Hoops to jump through Common sense into practice (cf. Fullan) Easier than what came before

9. Quote We have witnessed over the last 30 years numerous attempts at planned educational change. The benefits have not nearly equaled the costs, and all too often, the situation has seemed to worsen. We have, however, gained clearer and clearer insights over this period about the dos and donts of bringing about change….One of the most promising features of this new knowledge about change is that successful examples of innovation are based on what might be most accurately labeled organized common sense. (Fullan, 1991, p. xi-xii) Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.

10. The Marriage of Problem Solving and School-Wide Models

11. Level IV IEP Consideration Implement Plan Evaluate Define the Problem Develop a Plan Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem The Problem Solving Approach INTENSITY OF PROBLEM Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team Consultation Level I Between Teachers-Parents Level II Consultation with Other Resources

12. If you teach the same curriculum, to all students, at the same time, at the same rate, using the same materials, with the same instructional methods, with the same expectations for performance and grade on a curve you have fertile ground for growing special education. Gary Germann, 2003

13. The Problem Solving Process Implement Plan (Treatment Integrity) Carry out the intervention Evaluate (Progress Monitoring Assessment) Did our plan work? Define the Problem (Screening and Diagnostic Assessments) What is the problem and why is it happening? Develop a Plan (Goal Setting and Planning) What are we going to do ?

14. Level IV IEP Consideration Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem The Problem Solving Approach INTENSITY OF PROBLEM Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team Consultation Level I Between Teachers-Parents Level II Consultation with Other Resources Initial Instruction

15. Level One Develop a Plan Anecdotal documentation Evaluate Parent and teacher determine effectiveness and need for additional resources Define the Problem Informal discussion focusing on behaviors of concern Implement Plan Parent and teacher gather information and monitor Parent Teacher Consultation Between Teacher and Parent

16. Level IV IEP Consideration Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem The Problem Solving Approach INTENSITY OF PROBLEM Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team Consultation Level I Between Teachers-Parents Level II Consultation with Other Resources Strategic Instruction/ Intervention

17. Level Two Develop a Plan - -Team offers strategies -Solutions generated -Plan written Evaluate Implement Plan Define the Problem -Available Screenings -Further definition of the problem - Team assists with implementation - Data collected from naturally occurring sources if possible -Data used to evaluate progress -Success determined Parent Teacher BAT Building Assistance Team Strategic Instruction: Consultation with Other Resources

18. Level Three -Implement according to written plan -Ongoing systematic data collection -Follow-up as needed Evaluate Develop a Plan - Generate possible solutions -Evaluate solutions -Select a solution -Collect baseline data -Set a goal -Write action plan -Select measurement strategy -Develop plan to evaluate effectiveness Implement Plan Strategic Instruction: Consultation with Extended Problem Solving Team Define the Problem -Identify concern -Define behavior of concern -Problem validation -Data analyzed to determine effectiveness -Success determined by rate of progress & size of discrepancy -Recycle or determine need to consider entitlement for special education -Problem analysis -Functional assessment -Write problem statement Parent Teacher BAT AEA

19. Level IV IEP Consideration Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem The Problem Solving Approach INTENSITY OF PROBLEM Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team Consultation Level I Between Teachers-Parents Level II Consultation with Other Resources Intensive Instruction

20. Level Four Develop a Plan Define the Problem Implement Plan - -Using all data gathered at all levels problem solving, determine if appropriate interventions and whether or not special education services are needed. -Team develops IEP Intensive Instruction: Intervention and Entitlement Consideration (Due Process) Evaluate -Identify additional areas of concern -Develop assessment questions -Implement according to IEP -Ongoing systematic data collection -Instructional changes made as needed -Collect additional data necessary for entitlement decision Parent Teacher BAT AEA -Success determined by rate of progress and size of discrepancy -Plan rewritten once per year or as often as data indicates the need

21. Some Characteristics Works in important student performance domains Academics Reading Math Science Writing Social, emotional and behavioral development Works for large groups, small groups and individuals Consistent logic set is used throughout

22. Elements of an Effective Model Set of goals Valid and reliable assessment system to monitor progress Adoption of research proven materials and programs Adequate, prioritized instructional time Differentiated instruction, grouping, and scheduling Strong instructional leaders maintaining focus and establishing support mechanisms An integrated system of research-based professional development and resource allocation. Adapted from Kameenui and Simmons

23. Acknowledgments The triangle for resource allocation comes from a number of different places Mental Health (Adelman and Taylor) Social, Emotional and Behavioral Development (Sugai and Horner) Curriculum and Instruction (Kameenui and Simmons) The School Wide Model

24. Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% 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 Universal Interventions All students Preventive, proactive Universal Interventions All settings, all students Preventive, proactive School-Wide Systems for Student Success

25. Why use a School-Wide Approach? The best way to address problems is to prevent them before they happen Achievement of all students is everyones responsibility within a school. Early intervention to promote success is critical to future school achievement. Early intervention requires accurate identification of children at risk for failure. Assessment, instruction, and meaningful outcomes for students must be aligned.

26. Why use a School-Wide Approach? Some students will require intensive interventions. Assessment data will be needed to determine resources needed to address concerns. Ongoing monitoring should direct instructional decisions and be repeated with the frequency needed for timely interventions. No matter how great the idea or how compelling the research, if an intervention is not working, something must change.

27. Foundations Activity #1a Identify a person at your table to work with Look in your activity packet, turn to Foundations activity #1a Brainstorm a list things you remember about a PS, School wide model from the presentation. What stood out most for you? Why is it important?

28. Activity 1b Come together at your table. Discuss: How is the problem solving/school wide model similar to service delivery in your school today? How do the models differ from the service delivery model in your school today? What questions arise at this point for your group? Write them down, put them on the parking lot.

29. Helping Children Read...Helping Teachers Teach H eartland E arly L iteracy P roject Problem Solving and the School-Wide Model in Practice

30. Four Organizing Principles Earlier rather than later -- Prevention and early intervention are supremely more effective and efficient than later intervention and remediation for ensuring reading success.

31. Four Organizing Principles Schools, not just programs -- Prevention and early intervention must be anchored to the school as the host environment and primary context for improving student outcomes.

32. Four Organizing Principles Evidence, not opinion -- Prevention and early intervention pedagogy, programs, instruction and materials should be based on trustworthy scientific evidence.

33. Four Organizing Principles Each and All-- To teach all children to read, we must teach each child to read. Kameenui, E. and Simmons, D. (2002) University of Oregon, Beginning Reading Institute

35. Were aiming to help children establish trajectories toward success P K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 + Low High Trajectory- the path a projectile makes under the action of given forces such as thrust, wind and gravity. -- Encarta World English Dictionary

36. Established - Benchmark Emerging - Strategic Deficit - Intensive Assessment and Instructional Grouping Score Time Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2Benchmark 3

37. Established - Benchmark Assessment and Instructional Grouping Score Time Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2Benchmark 3

38. What Does the School-Wide Model Look Like?

39. Key Features of HELP DIBELS Student interventions based on response to instruction Benchmark Strategic Intensive Ongoing Monitoring Instructional changes based on data Literacy Team Administrative support

40. Continuous School Improvement Assess Needs Planning Implementation and Monitoring Evaluation

41. Five Stages to Implementation

42. Stage One Conduct School Audit Assess Student Performance Assess Needs Planning Implementation Evaluation Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

43. Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective School- Wide Reading Programs Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons Conduct a School Audit

44. Assess Student Performance Benchmark assessments 3 times per year for all students Ongoing monitoring for strategic students once per month Ongoing monitoring for intensive students once per week Literacy team assisting teachers in providing instruction guided by data

45. Stage Two Analyze School and Student Performance Identify Reading Priorities Identify Students who require Benchmark Intervention Strategic Intervention Intensive Intervention Assess Needs Planning Implementation Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons Evaluation

46. Intensive Interventions 5% Strategic Interventions 15% Core Curriculum 80% Adapted from: Sugai and Horner

47. Stage Three Design Core Instructional Interventions Customize Intensive and Strategic Interventions Assess Needs Planning Implementation Evaluation Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

48. Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction to Achieve Instructional Priorities Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

49. Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction to Achieve Instructional Priorities Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

50. A Consumers Guide To Evaluating a Core Reading Program Grades K-3: A Critical Elements Analysis Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

51. Stage Four Establish and Implement Progress Monitoring System Customize Progress Monitoring System for Intensive and Strategic Interventions Assess Needs Planning Implementation Evaluation Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

52. First Grade Benchmark Goals (Working Backwards) Established Reader by Spring of First Grade if you hit 40 or more correct on Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring of first grade you are an established reader. Established Alphabetic Principle by Winter of First Grade if you hit 40 or more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in winter of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or more correct on Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring of first grade. Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione

53. Kindergarten Benchmark Goals: Established Phonological Awareness by Spring of Kindergarten if you hit 35 to 45 correct on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in spring of K/fall of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in winter of first grade. Established Initial Sounds (Onset) Phonological Awareness by Winter of Kindergarten if you hit 25 - 35 correct on Onset Recognition Fluency (OnRF) in winter of K, the odds are in your favor to reach 35 to 45 correct on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in spring of K. Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione

54. Stage Five Evaluate School Level Performance Intensify Intervention Assess Needs Planning Implementation Evaluation Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

55. How are we doing?

58. Components of Successful School Implementation of HELP Administrative Support Link to School Improvement Adequate Time for Staff Development Materials Data Collection by Teachers Data Interpretation and Understanding Instruction Guided by Data

59. 2001-2002 Beginning: Middle: 4393 End: 4590 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4336 End: 4331 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1832 End: 2108 Cross-year box plots phonological awareness Kindergarten Heartland Students

60. : Cross-year box plots oral reading fluency First Grade Heartland Students Legend 2001=2002 Beginning: Middle: 4427 End: 4412 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4036 End: 4151 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1595 End: 1879

61. Insert K Placement Data Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Kindergarten Across 36 School Buildings 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 96-9797-9898-9999-0000-0101-02. School Year Number of New SPED Placements Prior to HELP Mean HELP Implementation Mean 55% Reduction in Kindergarten New SPED Placements

62. Insert 1 Placement Data

65. Punch Line Table 1. Z-Score Growth For Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 1999-2002. Yr1-Yr2 Z Score Yr 1- Yr 3 Z Scores Mean Z Score0.711.08 Median Z Score0.701.25 Number of Scores8536 Low Z Score-3.76-0.77 High Z Score3.933.29

66. Punch Line Table 2. Z-Score Growth For Oral Reading Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 2002-2003. Yr1-Yr2 Z ScoreYr 1- Yr 3 Z scores Mean Z Score0.260.39 Median Z Score0.320.36 Number of Scores8632 Low Z Score-2.15-0.68 High Z Score2.492.47

67. Foundations Activity #2 Leave your stuff, take your activity handout, get up and find a new table. Rule for new table: no one from your current table should be there. Sit down. Introduce yourself. At your new table discuss your answers to the following questions: If we implemented a system of early intervention similar to this in all of our schools, what implications might it have for Teachers? Administrators? Parents? NCLB Implementation? IDEA Implementation? At risk students? Students with disabilities? Talented and Gifted Students? Secondary Students?