1 / 47

Implementing Response to Intervention: A Statewide Approach in Idaho

Implementing Response to Intervention: A Statewide Approach in Idaho. Gerald D. Nunn, Idaho State University nunngera@isu.edu Wayne Callender, Idaho State Department of Education wcallend@boisestate.edu. “The Best Way to Predict the future is to invent it.” John Sculley, 1987.

megan
Télécharger la présentation

Implementing Response to Intervention: A Statewide Approach in Idaho

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing Response to Intervention: A Statewide Approach in Idaho Gerald D. Nunn, Idaho State University nunngera@isu.edu Wayne Callender, Idaho State Department of Education wcallend@boisestate.edu

  2. “The Best Way to Predict the future is to invent it.” John Sculley, 1987

  3. The World as you know it is about to change?

  4. Picture This… A third grade student transfers into your school from a nearby community. Test scores indicate her reading skills are significantly below grade level. • If you were this student’s parent, what would you prefer happen? • What course of action is likely to be pursued to assist this student?

  5. Three Paths: • The student receives additional assistance (i.e., reading lab, tutoring, additional instruction, help with homework) • The student is referred for a special education evaluation • The student continues to struggle and teachers do the best they can to assist

  6. Three Paths (cont.) Options A,B, & C are low probability occurrences-unlikely to bring about an increase in the student’s reading skills and, thus, unlikely to increase her long-term academic performance.

  7. The Urgency of Intervention Readers below proficiency at the end of first grade are at-risk for long-term academic difficulty. • There is an 88% probability of being a poor reader in fourth grade if you were a poor reader in first grade (Juel, 1988) • 75% of students identified with reading problems in the third grade are still reading disabled in 9th grade (shaywitz, et.al, 1996)

  8. WHY PROBLEM SOLVING For every complex problem, there is a simple solution… that doesn’t work Mark Twain

  9. History of RTI in Idaho • Idea birthplace: A Mall in Kansas City • Influences: Iowa, Kansas • Original schools (1999-2000): • Mackay Elementary (Rural Idaho) • Acequia Elementary (Southern Idaho) • Dalton Elementary (Northern Idaho)

  10. RTI Pilot Schools • Number of schools by region • 1 = 18 • 2 = 13 • 3 = 41 • 4 = 18 • 5 = 9 • 6 = 32

  11. RTI Schools in Idaho • Number of schools (total) = 131 (40,000 students) • Number of districts = 43 (38% of total) • Elementary = 107 (82%) • Secondary = 24 (18%) • New schools added this year = 27across 5 regions

  12. What Were We Thinking? Why consider discontinuing the traditional model? • Did it Work? • Was it Efficient? • Did it help us Teach? • Was there a Better Way?

  13. The Discrepancy Model Dilemma

  14. Guiding (Idaho) Principles of Problem-Solving/RTI • Let’s work together to help struggling kids (not worry if they qualify). • Spend our time engaged in applying powerful, direct interventions. • Make paperwork functional. • Students severely discrepant from peers, requiring intense, long-term interventions should qualify for special education.

  15. Guiding Principles of NCLB • Accountability for Student Performance • Focus on What Works • Reduce Bureaucracy & Increase Flexibility • Empower Parents

  16. Best Practices Supporting Effective Implementation of RTI • Problem Solving Teams • Parental Involvement • Functional Assessment • Outcome Oriented Intervention • Ongoing Progress Monitoring • Systematic Data-Based Decision Making

  17. A Problem= What is Expected Performance

  18. So… How has Problem-Solving/RTI impacted our schools? • Focus on school context • General education • Special education

  19. TEACHER CHILD • Biology • Genetic endowment • Environmental influence • Education/teacher preparation • Experience • Classroom management style Student Achievement • Family context • Income • Education • Culture • Community context • Resources • Culture CLASSROOM • Size • Curriculum • Resources • Material • support personnel Student Achievement is the Product of the Child in the School Context

  20. What Effective Schools Look Like

  21. “I’m increasingly persuaded that schools that go slow and do a little at a time end up doing so little that they succeed only in upsetting everything without accruing the benefits of change” Sister in Prestine, 1992

  22. Impact on General Education Changes to System • Integration of resources • All students addressed • Focus on school context • Prioritized learning activities • Emphasis on research-based instructional practices

  23. Impact on Special Ed Major changes in… • When students are placed • How kids are identified (dual discrepancy) • What professionals do (refer, test, place) • Who gets assistance • Focus of services

  24. Dual Discrepancy Eligibility Criteria When a student exhibits large differences from typical levels of performance in achievement, social behavior, or emotional regulation AND Withevidence of insufficient response to high-quality interventions in academic and/or behavioral domains of concern.

  25. Noncategorical Eligibility Criteria • Is there evidence of resistance to general education interventions? ( explain interventions implemented and data showing results) • Are the resources necessary to support the child to participate and progress in the general education curriculum beyond those available in the general education curriculum? (Describe what resources are necessary) • Is there evidence of a severe discrepancy from peer’s performance in the areas of concern? (Must use multiple indicators) • Is there a convergence of evidence which logically and empirically support the team’s decisions?

  26. Over Identifying? Studied Response of Struggling Readers (second grade) receiving supplemental instruction: ¼ Early Exit (10 wks) ¼ Midterm (20 wks) ¼ Late Exit (30 wks) ¼ No Exit (After 30 wks) Vaughn, 2003

  27. Changes Since Inception • Build Infrastructure and Address the System • On-Going Evaluation of System • Combine Problem-Solving and Standard Protocol Approach • Improve Problem-Analysis and Quality/Intensity of Intervention • More Explicit Training and On-Going Support • Definition of Response to Intervention (Exit Intensive Level) • Reconsider Notion of Learning Disability (Focus on Need) • POSSE (Standardize the Process) • Nature of Comprehensive Evaluation

  28. Results-Based Model of Idaho(RBM) Gerald D. Nunn, Ph.D., NCSP Program Director School Psychology Research and Evaluation Findings Presented at the National Association of School Psychologists April 2005

  29. A I ct on dentify I I Interventions Concerns D D L ook at E E Results A A L E L D xplore efine Interventions Problems IDEAL Bransford & Stein, 1993 The IDEAL Problem Solving Approach Putting Together the Intervention Puzzle

  30. Knowledge, Skills, and Perceptions of Problem Solving Practices • What did educators/teams think and know about the skills and basis of problem-solving, RTI, etc.?

  31. Highest Rated Perceived Skills by Team Members 89% Gaining rapport with children 81% Work well with a team of professionals 73% Work well with young children 77% Good working relationships with other professionals 72% Sensitive to the needs and situations of those I work with

  32. Highest Rated Existing Needs by Team Members • 77% Determine and use the "resources" available to you to effectively plan and implement interventions. • 76% Develop effective treatments and interventions for children. • 75% Collect, graph, & make decisions to maintain/change an intervention. • 74% Determine when to change or continue an intervention based upon data you collect. • 73% Persuade people to take action, change, improve situations.

  33. 10 Highest Ratings for Implementation of Problem Solving Practices by Team Members* • Team atmosphere positive/comfortable. • Parent encouraged to contribute. • Well organized/efficient meeting. • High degree of collaboration. • Brainstorming effectively used. • Parents active participants. • Process supportive of Gen Ed Teacher. • A “variety” of assessments were used. • The PLOP was defined. • The “problem” was clearly defined. *G.D. Nunn (1999) Problem-Solving Innovation Survey

  34. Lowest Ratings for Implementation of Problem Solving Practices* • Progress graph was discussed. • Data was collected. • Changes in aimlines/interventions were made. • Student was involved in the process. • A “problem-solving” method was used. • Decision-rules were used. • Baseline data was collected and used to set goals. • Data was frequently collected, monitored, analyzed. • A “problem-analysis” statement was developed. • A data-based discrepancy was quantified (i.e., expected/occurs ratio) *G.D. Nunn (1999) Problem-Solving Innovation Survey

  35. What was happening? • Things we found…

  36. Core Knowledge & Skills of Problem Solving

  37. Problem-Solving Pre-RBM?

  38. What Did Teams Really Do?Observing the Team Process…

  39. Using Graphs/Progress Monitoring & Data-Based Decisions….

  40. Intervention Plan Improvements

  41. Problem-Solving Pre-Post

  42. Average Change in IRI Raw Scores from Fall-Spring 2003 by Students with RBM I-Plans and Those Without I Plans. 120 100 80 Change 60 40 20 0 Yes On I-Plan No I-Plan IRI Effect Size

More Related