1 / 37

Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention

Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention. A module for pre-service and in-service professional development MN RTI Center Module author: Amy Reschly, PhD www.scred.k12.mn.us click on RTI Center. MN RTI Center Training Modules.

martineznancy
Télécharger la présentation

Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention

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. Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention A module for pre-service and in-service professional development MN RTI Center Module author: Amy Reschly, PhD www.scred.k12.mn.us click on RTI Center DRAFT May 27 2009

  2. MN RTI Center Training Modules This module was developed with funding from the MN legislature It is part of a series of modules available from the MN RTI Center for use in preservice and inservice training: DRAFT May 27 2009 2

  3. Overview • Background • Systems theory: student learning in context • Response to Intervention • Current trends in the family engagement literature • RTI-Family Engagement Model DRAFT May 27 2009

  4. Background Questions • Who is responsible for student learning? • What does No Child Left Behind imply about responsibility? • When a student isn’t doing well at school, to what do we attribute this? • Differences in how families and schools would answer this question? • What supports student learning at home? At school? • Are there differences in how families and schools would answer this question? DRAFT May 27 2009

  5. Ecological Systems Theory DRAFT May 27 2009 Bronfenbrenner

  6. Three-Legged Stool: Students, Families, and Schools DRAFT May 27 2009

  7. Ecological Systems Theory: Families and Schools • Many studies and policies (re. families and schools) were developed without a theoretical framework • Needed to advance research and guide practice • Jordan et al., 2001 • Systems Theory • Provides the theoretical foundation for working across families and schools to promote student success • Focus on understanding child development (learning and behavior) in context • Reciprocal interactions and relationships among these contexts (families and schools) over time DRAFT May 27 2009 Reschly & Christenson, 2009

  8. Learning Context • An interwoven structure of circumstances and people that surround the child across systems at a given point in time and over time. • Consider the “affordance value” of this context—or how the learning context facilitates or impedes child adaptation to challenges and demands of schooling. • Question should be… • How does the social context support or thwart the development of student competence (behavior, academics, socially) for students across settings and time? DRAFT May 27 2009 Christenson & Anderson, 2002

  9. DRAFT May 27 2009

  10. Implications • We cannot understand student competence or difficulties as a function of home or school – must consider the entire system (children, family, school, community, peers) • Schools and homes are the primary socializing and learning contexts for students. Relationships between families and school personnel are important for promoting competence -> Mesosystem DRAFT May 27 2009

  11. Implications (Cont’d) • Risk is not located within student, home, or school systems, but distributed across systems and represented in interactions. • Pianta & Walsh, 1996 • High risk: lack of congruence, poor relationships between home and school • Low risk: family and school systems are well-functioning, positive relationships promote congruence and shared responsibility DRAFT May 27 2009

  12. Assessment & Intervention Questions • What are typical assessment practices? • Where are interventions implemented? • What does our understanding of ecological systems theory mean for assessment? What about intervention? DRAFT May 27 2009

  13. Response to Intervention • Calls for reform over many years to address… • Within child conceptualizations of educational difficulties • Too little time for prevention and early intervention • More rhetoric than action in creating meaningful opportunities for parent engagement • Assessment conducted for the purpose of eligibility determination rather than intervention • Reliance on special education placement as a means of addressing student difficulties DRAFT May 27 2009 Reschly, Chaffin, Christenson, & Gutkin, 2007

  14. Promise of RTI • May address many of these criticisms • Focus on all students • Contexts essential to success – implications for assessment and intervention • Families are necessary, not optional • Changes inherent in RTI creating an opportunity to meaningfully engage families • Prevention, screening, and early intervention • Frequent systematic data collection • Focus on Problem-Solving • Change from whereto teach to how, what and is it working?to produce optimal student learning DRAFT May 27 2009 Reschly et al., 2007

  15. Working with Families • The evidence is consistent, positive, and convincing: families have a major influence on their children’s achievement in school and through • Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7) DRAFT May 27 2009

  16. Out of School Time • From birth to the age of 18, students spend more than 90% of their time outside of schools. • Walberg • Efforts to improve student achievement, and close the achievement gap among various groups of students (e.g., those in poverty, racial/ethnic groups, English learners), must take into account the power of out-of-school time. • Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005 DRAFT May 27 2009

  17. Families • Families have an enormous impact on student outcomes… but what they do is more important than who they are • Family process variables account for a much greater portion of the variance in achievement (60%) than those related to status (25%) • Kellaghan et al., 1993 DRAFT May 27 2009

  18. Mesosystem: Families & Schools • When schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more. • Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7) • There has been a gradual deconstruction of the notion that families and schools have separate responsibilities for student learning. • Reschly & Christenson, 2009 DRAFT May 27 2009

  19. Mesosystem: Congruence • The processes and characteristics that enhance academic achievement are essentially the same - whether found in the home or in the school” • Chall • Home predictors of school learning—work habits of the home, academic guidance and support, stimulation to explore and discuss ideas and events, language environment, and academic aspirations and expectations—are comparable to school factors that enhance achievement • Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993 DRAFT May 27 2009

  20. Common Factors Across Home-School-Community Related to Student Competence • Shared Standards and Expectations • The level of expected performance held by key adults for the student is congruent across home and school, and reflects a belief that the student can learn. • Consistent Structure • The overall routine and monitoring provided by key adults for the student have been discussed and are congruent across home and school. • Cross-setting Opportunity to Learn • The variety of learning options available to the youth during school hours and outside of school time (i.e., home and community) supports the student’s learning. • (Cont’d on next slide) Christenson & Peterson, 2006; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002 DRAFT May 27 2009

  21. Common Factors Across Home-School-Community Related to Student Competence (Cont’d) • Mutual Support • The guidance provided by, the communication between, and the interest shown by adults to facilitate student progress in school is effective. It is what adults do on an ongoing basis to help the student learn and achieve. • Positive, Trusting Relationships • The amount of warmth and friendliness; praise and recognition; and the degree to which the adult-youth relationship is positive and respectful. It includes how adults in the home, in the school, and in the community work together to help the student be a learner. • Modeling • Parents and teachers demonstrate desired behaviors and commitment and value toward learning and working hard in their daily lives to the student. Christenson & Peterson, 2006; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002 DRAFT May 27 2009

  22. Family Involvement: A Universally Endorsed Ideal • Initiatives, position statements from national organizations (e.g., PTA, NASP), and legislation (e.g., NCLB, IDEA) related to family involvement • Not only ensuring family rights but a universal goal of encouraging family engagement and involvement in education • Not there yet…. Vision of partnerships among educators and families not reached DRAFT May 27 2009 22

  23. Status of Family Engagement Field Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009 DRAFT May 27 2009

  24. Families, Schools and RTI:Evidence-Based Interventions • NCLB, IDEA, Task Forces within APA Divisions • What works, for whom, and under what conditions? • Various recent literature reviews and meta-analyses examining family and family-school interventions • E.g., Division 16 Task Force (Carlson & Christenson, 2005); Nye, Turner, & Schwartz, 2007; Henderson & Mapp, 2002. DRAFT May 27 2009

  25. Carlson & Christenson, 2005 • Areas reviewed: parent training and therapy, consultation, involvement, and family focused early childhood interventions • Moderate to large effect sizes across areas • Most effective interventions were those with a systems orientation: • Collaboration interventions w/ two-way communication, monitoring and dialogue • Focused parent education programs (specific behavior or learning outcomes) • Parent involvement programs with parents as tutors in specific subjects • Parent consultation DRAFT May 27 2009

  26. Meta-Analysis Example: Nye et al., 2007 • Effects of parent involvement programs on academic performance of elementary students • Overall positive, significant effects • Most studies in area of reading – stable, moderate effect sizes • Significant moderate effect sizes in math, more variable • Moderator analyses • Large effects for intervention programs in which parents provided some reward or incentive for student performance, followed by those with parent education/training components DRAFT May 27 2009

  27. Caveats • Much more research needed • Directions and issues outlined in Carlson & Christenson, 2005; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Ginsburg-Block, Manz, & McWayne, in press; Jordan et al., 2001; Sheridan, 2005, among others. • Effective practices vary across sites • Depending on the unique needs of families, students, and schools and the resources available to families, schools, and communities • Particular programs or strategies may have different effects at different ages • Jordan et al., 2001 DRAFT May 27 2009 Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009

  28. Family-School Co-Roles & Partnerships in RTI Reschly (2008b), RTI Action Network DRAFT May 27 2009

  29. References • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley. • Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom? New York: Guilford Press. • Christenson, S.L., & Anderson, A.R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of the learning context for students' academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 378-393. • Christenson, S. L., & Carlson, C. (2005). Evidence-based parent and family interventions in school psychology: State of scientifically based practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 525-528. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press. • Christenson, S. L., & Peterson, C. J. (2006). Family, school, and community influences on children’s learning: A literature review. All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. www.parenting.umn.edu DRAFT May 27 2009

  30. References (Cont’d) • Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press. • Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Ginsburg-Block, M., Manz, P. H., & McWayne, C. (in press). Partnering to foster achievement in reading and mathematics. In S.L. Christenson and A.L. Reschly (Eds). Handbook of School Family Partnerships. New York: Routledge. • Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. • Jordan, C., Orzco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connections. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. • Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B. S. (1993). The home environment and school learning: Promoting parental involvement in the education of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. DRAFT May 27 2009

  31. References (Cont’d) • Moles, O. (1993). Building school-family partnerships for learning: Workshops for urban educators. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. • Nye, C., Turner, H., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Approaches to parent involvement for improving the academic performance of elementary school age children. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/frontend2.asp?ID=9 • Pianta, R., & Walsh, D. B. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. NY: Routledge. • Reschly, A.L. (2008a). Ecological approaches to working with families. Symposium with Gutkin, T.B., Doll, B.J., Reschly, A.L., Stoiber, K.C., Hintze, J.M., & Conoley, J.C. (2008, August). Ecological Approaches to School Psychological Services: Putting Theory Into Action. Held at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Boston, MA. • Reschly, A.L. (2008b). Schools, families and response to intervention. Invited piece for the RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning Disabilities. Available on-line at: http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/Family/ar/Schools-Familes-and-Response-to-Intervention DRAFT May 27 2009

  32. References (Cont’d) • Reschly, A., Coolong, M. A., Christenson, S. L., & Gutkin, T. B. (2007). Contextual influences and RTI: Critical issues and strategies.In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns ,& A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer • Reschly, A. L, & Christenson, S. L. (2009). Parents as essential partners for fostering students’ learning outcomes. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. Furlong (Eds). A handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 257-272). New York: Routledge. • Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on evidence-based parent and family interventions: Will what we know now influence what we do in the future? School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 518-524. • Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 397-400. • Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., & Bouffard, S. (2005). Participation in youth programs: Enrollment, attendance, and engagement. [Special Issue] New Directions for Youth Development, 105. • Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (2002). FAAB: Functional Assessment of Academic Behavior. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. DRAFT May 27 2009

  33. Resources • All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. www.parenting.umn.edu • RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning Disabilities. www.rtinetwork.org • Harvard Family Research Project http://www.hfrp.org/ • Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, Dr. Susan Sheridan, University of Nebraska. http://cehs.unl.edu/edpsych/graduate/spCbc.shtml DRAFT May 27 2009

  34. Quiz • 1.) Systems theory does what? • A.) Provides a theoretical foundation for working across families and schools • B.) Focuses on understanding child development • C.) Studies learning and behavior in context • D.) Looks at reciprocal interactions and relationships among families and schools over time • E.) All of the above DRAFT May 27 2009

  35. Quiz (Cont’d) • 2.) A promise of Response to Intervention is that families are ________not _________. • 3.) Name three out of the six common factors across home-school-community related to student competence. DRAFT May 27 2009

  36. Quiz (Cont’d) • 4.) Caveats of RTI: True or False • 1- Much more research is needed • 2- Effective practices do not vary by site • 3- Particular programs/strategies may have the same effects at different ages DRAFT May 27 2009

  37. The End  • Note: The MN RTI Center does not endorse any particular product. Examples used are for instructional purposes only. • Special Thanks: • Thank you to Dr. Ann Casey, director of the MN RTI Center, for her leadership • Thank you to Aimee Hochstein, Kristen Bouwman, and Nathan Rowe, Minnesota State University Moorhead graduate students, for editing work, writing quizzes, and enhancing the quality of these training materials DRAFT May 27 2009

More Related