RtI Innovations 16th Anniversary Conference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

rti innovations 16th anniversary conference n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
RtI Innovations 16th Anniversary Conference PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
RtI Innovations 16th Anniversary Conference

play fullscreen
1 / 101
RtI Innovations 16th Anniversary Conference
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

RtI Innovations 16th Anniversary Conference

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. RtI Innovations 16th Anniversary Conference PM Break out Session 8: Advanced MTSS/RtI in Early Childhood Settings: Unlocking Systems’ Strengths to Meet Children’s Needs Friday, October 11th, 2013 Salt Lake City, Utah

  2. Judith Carta, Ph.D. Co-director Center for the Study of RtI in EC (CRTIEC) Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Kansas Robin Miller Young, Ed.D., NCSP Director of Early Childhood Education Rockford University, Rockford, IL Charlie Greenwood, Ph.D. Professor and Director Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Kansas

  3. Kelly Justice Regional Coordinator Florida PS/RtI Project Corrie MervynEarly Childhood CoordinatorIngham Intermediate School DistrictMason, MI Mary Jo Wegenke Literacy Consultant Ingham Intermediate School District Kim St. Martin State/Regional Administrator MiBLSi, State of Michigan MTSS/RtI Project

  4. CRTIEC A Multi-Site Research Center Focused on Promoting Early Literacy and Language CENTER FOR RESPONSE TO INTERVENTIONIN EARLY CHILDHOOD

  5. Our Goal and Mission • Long-term Goal: Prevention of reading disabilities by reducing the number of young children who enter school below benchmark in language and early literacy skills • Mission: To produce evidence-based tools and resources needed to support the application of RTI in Early Childhood Education

  6. Our Key Partners • University of Kansas • Charles Greenwood & Judith Carta • Dynamic Measurement Group; Eugene, OR • Ruth Kaminski • University of Minnesota • Scott McConnell • Ohio State University/University of South Florida • Howard Goldstein • Division for Early Childhood-CEC

  7. Who are you? • How many of you have been implementing RTI or MTSS models for many years? • How many of you have been implementing RTI/MTSS models in early childhood settings? • How many have not been implementing in RTI in EC but have that as a goal?

  8. Learner Objectives: Learn how the core features of MTSS/RtI in EC are being implemented in various local, regional and state-wide settings. Design action steps to ensure a strong program-, school-, district, and/or state-level start-up and procedural adherence to effective and efficient protocols. 8

  9. Learner Objectives • Learn about latest developments with regard to RTI models and its components

  10. Some Challenges of Implementing RtI Approaches in Early Education • Pre-kindergarten settings are quite variable • (i.e., Head Start, state-funded pre-k, privately funded child care etc.); unclear who would implement measures and higher tier interventions. • Personnel in these settings often lack training and expertise; are underpaid and have high rates of turnover. • Including teacher-directed instruction in pre-kindergarten is often controversial. • Designing interventions that strike the balance between being developmentally appropriate and have the intensity to boost children who might be struggling to acquire early literacy skills.

  11. What are your presumptions about RTI in Early Education? • Can we assume that there programs have a high quality Tier 1 in place? • Can we assume that there are evidence-based Tier 2 and Tier 3 available? • Can we assume that measures are available for universal screening/progress monitoring?

  12. Tier 1 Curriculum and Instruction • What do we know from research in preschool? • How do we promote it in practice? • Tools and resources for promoting high quality Tier 1?

  13. What do we know from research? • Not many evidence-based curricula exist (those reporting measurably superior findings • PCERs Findings • Early Reading First Findings • What Works Clearing House • Quality of instruction in typical preschools is low • Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in pre-k. The Reading Teacher, 62(5), 384-392. • Justice, L. M., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 51-68. • Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., & Clifford, R., et al. (2008). Predicting child outcomes at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten teacher-child interactions and instruction. Applied Development Science, 12, 140-153.

  14. What do we know from research? • There are greater numbers of children needing instruction more intense than Tier 1 in income eligible preschool programs (Pre-K, Title 1, Head Start) than in Tuition-based programs • Tier 1 must be strengthened, made more intense and cover the 4 domains of language and early literacy if MTSS is to work well in these programs • The performance of Tier 1 is first priority in implementation MTSS Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Atwater, J., Goldstein, H., Kaminski, R., & McConnell, S. R. (2012). Is a response to intervention (RTI) approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction needed? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33(1), 48-64.

  15. What do we know about the quality of Tier 1?

  16. Efficacy of Tier 1 • Depends on: • Evidence-based curriculum • Use of evidence-practices and intentional teaching • Fidelity of Implementation • Data-based decision making for its improvement

  17. What We Have Learned So Far? • Teacher focus on literacy skills is associated with a sizeable increase in children’s academic engagement. • But, these teacher behaviors were relatively infrequent in occurrence, highlighting potentially fruitful targets for intervention: • Literacy focus – 15% of the time, or less than 30 minutes during a 3-hour period

  18. How much support did teachers provide students in their classroom? High Mid-range Low

  19. How often did teachers focus on literacy with the children observed?

  20. What was the level of children’s engagement?

  21. Relationship between Teacher Literacy Focus and Student Growth in Language and Literacy Indicators

  22. Teachers Divergent on Literacy Focus and Students’ Growth in Literacy

  23. Charlie will change graphs that go in here.

  24. Challenges Related to Tier One in Pre-K Finding evidence-based curricula Having the resources to carry out the ongoing professional development necessary for implementing the curriculum with high fidelity While everyone wants all children to be successful in kindergarten, we don’t all agree on the path to getting there.

  25. Resources for Evidence-Based Tier One Curriculum in Early Literacy • What Works Clearinghouse: Early Childhood Education • http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/Topic.aspx?tid=13. • Center for Early Literacy and Language: OSEP-funded TA Center • http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org. • Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Study: IES funded study of 14 curricula to promote school readiness • http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/pubs/20082009/index.asp • National Early Literacy Panel: NELP Report http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf

  26. How do we promote it in practice? • Strengthen the value of • “Intentional teaching” • Evidence-based practice • Fidelity of implementation • Teacher literacy focus • Adopt an early childhood MTSS model/framework to guide planning and implementation • Provide professional development and technical assistance • Practice-based teacher coaching • Measurement and use of data in decision making • Seek stakeholder and administrative “buy in”

  27. High Quality Curriculum and Instruction Tools and Resources 30

  28. Link Preschool Skills to Kindergarten Skills Connect expectations to those that lay ahead… Early Reading • Preschool • oral language • background knowledge • phonological processing • print knowledge • Primary Grades • reading vocabulary • reading comprehension • decoding of words • fluency and spelling From Landry, 2011

  29. What do we know about universal screening and progress monitoring measures?

  30. Currently available tools for early literacy screening progress monitoring • My-IGDIs: Tools for screening and progress monitoring in early literacy and language—Scott McConnell and colleagues • http://www.myigdis.com/. • mCLASS CIRCLE: Observational and assessment tools for progress monitoring on handheld devices—Susan Landry • http://www.amplify.com/assessment/mclass-circle. • Get Ready to Read (for screening only) • http://www.getreadytoread.org/) • My-IGDIs: Tools for screening and progress monitoring in early literacy and language—Scott McConnell and colleagues • http://www.myigdis.com/. • mCLASS CIRCLE: Observational and assessment tools for progress monitoring on handheld devices—Susan Landry • http://www.amplify.com/assessment/mclass-circle. • Get Ready to Read (for screening only) • http://www.getreadytoread.org/)

  31. myIGDIs and Assessment in RTI • myIGDIs are designed for two primary functions of assessment common in RTI • Universal screening, where all children in a class or program are evaluated briefly to identify those individuals who might benefit from more intensive intervention • Progress monitoring, where individuals receiving supplemental or adapted intervention are monitored regularly to determine if intervention services are appropriate for the child

  32. Include slide about 5 areas of universal screening for My-IGDIs • Math IGDIs

  33. EC RtI Measurement Architecture Screening Tier One + - Tier One Tier One + Identification - Tier Two Tier Three Progress Monitoring Current or Less-Intensive Tier + More Intensive Tier -

  34. Primary Functions of Assessment • Screening • To efficiently identify subsets of children who might meet standard(s) for more intensive intervention • Identification • To identify whether individual children meet standard(s) for Tier 2 or Tier 3 services in one or more domains • Progress Monitoring • To assess whether individual children are increasing growth rates at rate sufficient to meet general outcome goals • [Diagnostic/Planning Assessment] • To identify specific instructional goals and/or procedures to promote increased development

  35. Psychometric Standards - General • Time- and resource-efficient • Reliable across time(?) and examiners/raters • Various validity standards • Construct or concurrent validity viz ‘criterion’ measures • Discriminant validity • Treatment validity viz T1, T2, and T3 interventions • Predictive validity • Face validity

  36. The Narrative Language Measures (NLM)

  37. Narrative Language Measures(NLM) • Three Subtests • Test of Narrative Retell (TNR) • Test of Personal Generation (TPG) • Test of Story Comprehension (TSC; Preschool only) • Preschool, Kindergarten, First, Second, Third • 25 equivalent stories per grade level • 9 Benchmark stories (3 Fall, 3 Winter, 3 Spring) • 16 Progress Monitoring stories

  38. Time Efficient, Economical Brief Administration • Three benchmark TNRs take about 5 minutes • A single TNR for progress monitoring takes less than 2 minutes. Reduced Scoring Time • Scoring can be done in real-time while the child is retelling the story. • Scoring can be done by listening to an audio recording

  39. Trina D. Spencer & Douglas B. Petersen Graphics & illustrations by Olivia Petersen LanguageDynamicsGroup.com

  40. How are we setting standards? • One essential of RtI – Assigning Students to Tiers • By whatever standard, identify groups of children most appropriate for intervention in each tier of intervention • Standards and indices vary across RtI models • Possible standards • “The Pyramid” – 85% at Tier 1, 10% at Tier 2, 5% at Tier 3 • Functional standards – who needs to learn what? • Empirical standards – likelihood of meeting future expectations • Early Childhood and the Pyramid Percentages

  41. What do we know about problem-solving in early childhood?

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

  43. Data-Based Decision-Making General Principles Try to “triangulate” the data; that is, use data from one or more types (observation, rating scale, checklist, CBA aligned with instructional units, CBM, GOM, standardized), informants [teacher, related service provider, parent(s)], and settings. Norms needed; national, local, classroom. For some decisions, group data are best. For some decisions, single subject data are best. Try to graph data and do visual inspection. 47

  44. Problem-Solving Model Tilly, 2006

  45. Individual Child Progress Monitoring Intervention implemented Olive was below benchmark Olive had 3 quarterly assessments Provides ‘before’ and ‘after’ slope estimates

  46. Problem Solving Process Define Problem Teacher identified students below 25th %ile on IGDIs in January; the local norm benchmark. Slow rate of progress from September. Evaluate Classroom data were reviewed. The IGDIs Rhyming scores increased at a faster rate for 8 “at-risk” students than for “typical students” Students in Tier 3 demonstrated progress on specific intervention targets. Problem Analysis Eight students are at-risk for developing early literacy learning difficulties due to limited skill mastery from implicit Tier 1 learning opportunities done in large group. Implement Plan with Integrity Keep Tier 1, add Tier 2 for 8 Ss (more intentional teaching, some small group), and Tier 3 for 5 Ss: (small group “Model, Lead, Test” on Sound Blending)

  47. Data-Based Decision-Making Data-Based Decision-Making “Standard Protocol” approach; all students at or below a given score on some measure all get the same evidence based intervention “Individualized Problem-Solving” model; every child gets an individualized intervention Best practice may be a hybrid of the two for EC. If 6/20 students need supplemental phonological awareness for 6 weeks, they get it twice a week as a small group rather than each student receiving it individually. 51