Supporting the Implementation ofResponse to Intervention Ingham ISD October 22, 2010 Dr. George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director Institute for School Reform Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI Project University of South Florida
Culture of Change • No Child Left Behind (ESEA) • Accountability (Outcomes, Response to Instruction)-More Rigor • Disaggregated Data • State-Approved, State-Level Benchmarks-Higher Expectations • More exposure to the curriculum • IDEIA • Insistence on “effective instruction” in in reading and math in general education • Requirement for a different type of assessment • Continuous Progress Monitoring • Universal screening • Higher expectations for students with disabilities (All Can Learn) • Learn Act • A Blueprint for Reform-2010
Response to Intervention • RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions. (Batsche, et al., 2005) • Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.
LEARN Act and RTI • LEARN Act is the literacy foundation of ESEA • RTI Language in the LEARN Act is called “Multi-Tier System of Supports • Multi-Tier System of SupportsThe term ‘‘multi-tier system of supports’’ means a comprehensive system of differentiated supports that includes evidence-based instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, formative assessment, and research-based interventions matched to student needs, and educational decision making using student outcome data.
A Blueprint for Reform-2010 • "Instead of labeling failures, we will reward success. Instead of a single snapshot, we will recognize progress and growth. And instead of investing in the status quo, we must reform our schools to accelerate student achievement, close achievement gaps..." (Forward) • ”…districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape." (Page 6) • ”A commitment to...Meeting the needs of students with disabilities throughout ESEA and through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." )Page 19)
The Vision • 95% of students at “proficient” level • Students possess social and emotional behaviors that support “active” learning • A “unified” system of educational services • One “ED” • Student Support Services perceived as a necessary component for successful schooling
National Perspective • 71% of districts are in some stage of implementing RTI – up from 60% in 2008 and 44% in 2007 • RTI is being increasingly implemented across all grade levels with a significant increase in high school implementation compared to 2008 • Of districts with enough data, 83% indicated RTI has reduced the number of referrals to special education • Districts reported the three primary obstacles to implementing RTI as: Insufficient teacher training, Lack of intervention resources, Lack of data, knowledge, skills for tracking/charting • www.spectrumk12.com
Intensity vs. Severity Intensityis measured by how far behind a student is academically or how different the behavior is from peers or norms. Severity is degree to which the student respondsto well delivered intervention. A student could have an intense problem, but catch up quickly. Not Severe A student could have an intense problem, but NOT respond to well delivered interventions. Severe
Intensity vs. Severity An INTENSE problem is not necessarily a severe problem. Students with disabilities exhibit BOTH intensity AND severity
Paradigm Shift • Eligibility focus • Diagnose and Place • Get label • Outcome focus • Problem Solving and Response to Intervention • Get help
Consensus Building: A Shift in Thinking The central question is not: “What about the students is causing the performance discrepancy?” but “What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learners and learning environment should be altered so that the students will learn?” This shift alters everything else Ken Howell
“Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have and under-estimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up” Belasco & Stayer, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring to Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead, 1994
TIER I: Core, Universal Academic and Behavior GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students. Tier I:Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction. Tier I: Begins with clear goals: What exactly do we expect all students to learn ? How will we know if and when they’ve learned it? How you we respond when some students don’t learn? How will we respond when some students have already learned? Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and viable core curriculum
TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted Tier II For approx. 20% of students Core + Supplemental …to achieve benchmarks Tier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards). Where are the students performing now? Where do we want them to be? How long do we have to get them there? How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there? What resources will move them at that rate?
Tier III For Approx 5% of Students Core + Supplemental + Intensive Individual Instruction …to achieve benchmarks Where is the student performing now? Where do we want him to be? How long do we have to get him there? What supports has he received? What resources will move him at that rate? Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals. TIER III: Intensive, Individualized
get these tiers of support in order to meet benchmarks. These students + = Three Tiered Model of Student Supports The goal of the tiers is student success, not labeling.
Infrastructure • School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT) • Communication, Data Sharing • Roles/Responsibilities • Problem-Solving Process • Data Systems and Technology • Decision-Rules • Building the Tiers • Intervention Development and Decisions
Problem Solving teams • A school-based group composed of various school personnel who convene to a provide assistance to children who are having academic or behavioral difficulties in school. • The team is responsible for implementing a problem solving approach to identify and intervene in response to student’s’ needs within the arena of general education. • Schwanz & Barbour, 2005
Problem Solving versus Pre-referral teams • PSTs develop interventions designed to resolve a student’s academic or behavioral difficulty in a general education setting whenever possible. • Identify, through a tiered process, the supports and instructional strategies the student needs to make and maintain progress • PRTs recommend one or two interventions and then based on the student’s progress, determine whether a referral for an ESE evaluation is warranted to gather pscyho-educational information. • Triage whether student should be referred for ESE evaluation
Key Issues in Building a Team • Teams function best when all members have strong group process skills • Many teams have some (but not all) members who have been trained in group process skills • Training the team in group process skills provides the foundation needed to work effectively using a problem solving model
Addressing Time Factors • Time available for meetings is often sited as biggest barrier to success • Set aside a meeting time and make it sacred • Time is managed best when members come to the meetings prepared • When a firm meeting time has been established and is supported, meeting becomes part of the school culture
Process during team meetings • Provide team members with information/data prior to the meeting so individuals might prepare and problem solve in advance to facilitate the process during the meeting • Spend equal/appropriate time on each step for each problem introduced (facilitator/timekeeper) • Document discussion and record action plan with specifics clearly identified (recorder) • Assign a case manager to monitor the process between meetings(facilitator/case manager)
Process during team meetings • Begin each meeting by reviewing the steps to the problem solving process (facilitator) • Ensure that all members have an opportunity to participate in meaningful and relevant way • If using “brainstorming”, stick to the rules (facilitator/chair) • Manage time effectively (timekeeper)
School-Based Infrastructure • School-based leadership team (SBLT) • School-based coach • Process Technical Assistance • Interpretation and Use of Data • Master Calendar • Data Days • Evaluation Model
Principal’s Role in Leading Implementation of RtI • Models Problem-Solving Process • Expectation for Data-Based Decision Making • Scheduling “Data Days” • Schedule driven by student needs • Instructional/Intervention Support • Intervention “Sufficiency” • Communicating Student Outcomes • Celebrating and Communicating Success
Core Skill Areas for ALL Staff • Data-Based Decision Making Process • Coaching/Consultation • Problem-Solving Process • Data Collection and Management • Instruction/Intervention Development, Support and Evaluation • Intervention Fidelity • Staff Training • Effective Interpersonal Skills
Developing Infrastructure:Data Coaches & Facilitators • Data Coaches should be able to: • Gather and organize Tier I and II data • Support small group and individual data collection • Assist in data interpretation • Facilitate data meetings for building and grade levels • Facilitators: • Ensure pre-meeting preparation • Review steps in process and desired outcomes • Facilitate movement through steps • Facilitate consensus building • Set follow-up schedule/communication • Create evaluation criteria/protocol • Ensure parent involvement
PS/RtI Coaches Primary role and responsibilities • Collect and manage data (school, grade and classroom level) • Participate on school based PS team • Model effective group process using the 4 steps of PS • Partner with the school principal to facilitate the change initiatives • Collaborate with the district team to identify technical assistance as needed
Table Top Activity • How might roles changed as a result of implementing RtI? • Do the resources exist to support a 3-tier service delivery model? • What work must be done here?
Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary Problem Solving Process
Steps in the Problem-Solving Process • PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION • Identify replacement behavior • Data- current level of performance • Data- benchmark level(s) • Data- peer performance • Data- GAP analysis • PROBLEM ANALYSIS • Develop hypotheses( brainstorming) • Develop predictions/assessment • INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT • Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available and hypotheses verified • Proximal/Distal • Implementation support • Response to Intervention (RtI) • Frequently collected data • Type of Response- good, questionable, poor
REPLACEMENT BEHAVIORS • 90% of the students in first grade will demonstrate reading fluency at district benchmarks by January 15th of each year. • School-wide Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) will be at or below the _______ level monthly. • 75% of ELL students receiving Tier 2 services will achieve district level benchmarks in fluency.
Data Required for Problem Identification • Replacement Behavior • Current Level of Functioning • Benchmark/Desired Level • Peer Performance • GAP Analysis
Peers Benchmark Student(s) Problem ID Review
Peers Benchmark Student(s) Problem ID Review
Benchmark Peers Student(s) Problem ID Review
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 1 • Identify the number and names of students who are in core instruction 100% of the time. • Identify the number and names of students who receive supplemental instruction. • Identify the number and names of students who receive intensive instruction. • Calculate the % of students who receive only Tier 1, core instruction. • Is this at, above or below 80%? • Same for Tiers 2 and 3? • What does the distribution look like? A triangle, a rectangle?
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 2 • What % of Tier 1 students made proficiency? • What % of Tier 2 students made proficiency? • What % of Tier 3 students made proficiency? • What was the overall % of students who made proficiency? • Calculate by disaggregated groups.
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 3 • By disaggregated groups, plot the % of students who made proficiency for the past 5 years. • Calculate the % of average growth per year for each group. • % proficient in year 5 minus % proficient in year 1 divided by 5=average rate of increase in % of students making proficiency
Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 4 • Are you happy with: • % of students in core who are proficient? • Same for each of the other Tiers. • % of students in the three Tiers? • Given that the national increase in % of students who move to proficiency is about 7%, how are you doing with the rate over the past years and what does this information mean to you for the next 5 years? • In 2014, 95% of students should be proficient
West DeFuniak Elementary Tier I: Oral Reading Fluency • What is the problem? The core effectiveness for oral reading fluency in first grade is 65.9%. Why is it occurring? In first grade, students lack access to effective instruction because they are tardy and miss approximately 1/3 of the 90 minute reading block. If the first grade reading block is moved from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., then the core effectiveness for first grade will increase. • What are we going to do about it? First Grade reading block will be changed from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for the 08-09 school term. • Did the group respond to the intervention and was it positive, questionable or poor?
Freeport Elementary School Tier I: Oral Reading Fluency • What is the problem? • The core curriculum is ineffective for Low SES students (68.2%) • Why is it occurring? • Because visual presentation of each student’s progress is lacking, the student is unaware of where his/her progress falls on a weekly basis. (If students monitor their own progress and can visualize their performance, their oral reading fluency will increase. • What are we going to do about it? • At the beginning of the 08-09 school year, students are provided with a simple graph and are asked to monitor their own progress on weekly oral reading fluency probes. • Did the group respond to the intervention and was it • positive, questionable or poor?