rti tips & tricks of the trade: fourth year of implementation

The Enlarged City School District of Troy, NYSeptember 9, 2009

PreK-6 Staff

1

Michele Jacobs, Principal Meg Thurman, Director of Special Education

2

1. Insufficient Time to Plan or Meet

2. No Building Administrator3. No Designated Facilitator- Roles Defined4. No Standard Protocol for Intervention5. Not Sticking to the Prob. Solving Steps6. Insufficient Staff Development/Consensus7. Not Using Researched Based Programs8. Not Gathering Data Prior to the Meeting9. Decisions Not Data Based10. Assuming Special Education is an Intervention

3

RtI Core Principles

1. RTI/Problem Solving is about building a better support system for general education

2. Prevention and Early Intervention3. Scientifically based screening & progress monitoring

to inform instruction and intervention4. Data based decision making5. Use research-based, scientifically validated 3+ tiers

of interventions/instruction6. Use a problem-solving methodology7. Make a Plan

Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005NADSE (National Association of Directors of Special Education

5

What RTI Is and Is Not Is:RtI is an overall integrated system of service delivery for ALL students.

Is Not:RtI is not just an eligibility system—a way of reducing the numbers of students placed into special education.

7

Evaluating Core Reading ProgramsIf 80% is not Meeting on State

Standards FIX First

http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency

VocabularyComprehension

8

mailto:[email protected]

Evaluating Core Reading Programs

9

UNIVERSAL TIER 1: Benchmark/Core Programs:

1. Rigby Literacy (Harcourt Rigby Education2. Fountas & Pinnell (Heinemann)2. Trophies (Harcourt School Publishers3. The Nation’s Choice (Houghton Mifflin4. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading 5. Open Court (SRA/McGraw-Hill)6. Reading Mastery Plus (SRA/

McGraw-Hill)7. Scott Foresman Reading 8 Wright Group Literacy Reviewed by: Oregon Reading FirstComprehensive: Addressed all 5 areas and

included at least grades K-3

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

10

Addl.Diagnostic

AssessmentInstruction Results

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

All Students at a grade level

ODRsMonthly

Bx Screening

Bench-Mark

AssessmentAnnualTesting

Behavior Academics

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly Assessments

StandardProtocol

SmallGroupDifferent-iatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

11

Special Education

General Education

Sea of Ineligibility

Without A 3-Tiered Model-

12

With a 3-Tiered Model: Bridging the Gap

General Education

Interventions

Intensity of Problem

Am

ount

of R

esou

rces

Nee

ded

to S

olve

Pro

blem

This group MAY be spec. ed.

13

Example of 3-Tier Level Interventions

Time

Curricular Focus

Curricular Breadth

Frequency of Progress Monitoring

Tier I

90

5 areas

Core

3X Yearly or greater

Tier 2

120

Less than 5

Core+

Supplemental

Monthly or

greater

Tier 3

180

2 or less

Core+

Intensive

Weekly

Reading

14

You WILL have to change your master schedule to accommodate supplemental teaching

Flexibly grouping students and providing supplemental instruction requires planning and scheduling

Logistics of it all is one of the biggest hurdles you will face

15

Parent PermissionLetter to ParentsHandbook Changes

16

Until, and unless, Consensus (understanding the need and trusting in the support) is reached no support will exist to establish the Infrastructure. Until, and unless, the Infrastructure is in place Implementation will not take place.

A fatal flaw is to attempt Implementation without Consensus and Infrastructure

Leadership must come both from the Principal and from the educators in the building.

18

No child should be left behind It is OK to provide differential

service across students Academic Engaged Time must

be considered first Student performance is

influenced most by the quality of the interventions we deliver and how well we deliver them- not preconceived notions about child characteristics

Decisions are best made with data

Our expectations for student performance should be dependent on a student’s response to intervention, not on the basis of a “score” that “predicts” what they are “capable” of doing.

19

3-6 years Take it one step (e.g., skill) at a time. Start with young students (Fold in) Consider Tier 1 issues Create Tier 2 options with existing staff and

resources Develop a 5 year PDP for staff Ease their job with social support and

technology Use networks-avoid “reinventing” the wheel.

20

To get it done, you will have to allocate MUCH of your PD Time for 2 to 3 years (maybe longer) on getting RtI going and supporting it

The in-service model has to go away

Must be planned

Must change the way you do PD - we are looking for behavior change here!

21

Motivation issues- both for staff and kids. RtI is hard work (get on the bus)

Plan for motivation problems Be proactive and celebrate/share success

storiesCore PS/RTI Team: Visit a RTI school

22

1 2 3 4

The Vision: Building a System of Substantial Instructional Interventions to Reduce the Gap

3.2

Control With research-

based core but without extra instructional intervention

4.9

Intervention

With substantial instructional intervention

Grade level corresponding to age

Rea

ding

gra

de le

vel 4

3

2

1

5

2.5

5.2

At Risk on Early Screening

Low Risk on Early Screening

Torgesen, J.K. ( 2001). The theory and practice of intervention: Comparing outcomes from prevention and remediation studies. In A.J. Fawcett and R.I. Nicolson (Eds.). Dyslexia: Theory and Good Practice. (pp. 185-201). London: David Fulton Publishers. Slide coursety of W. Alan Coulter http://www.monitoringcenter.lsuhsc.edu 23

http://www.interventioncentral.org/

24

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2006-07 2007-08

% o

f stu

dent

s in

the

at-

risk

ca

tego

ry (1

6% a

nd lo

wer

)Overall I mpact of the Reading Model

% of struggling readers for 2006-07 and 07-08

200…

SStruggling readers defined as those at or below the 16% national Aimswebnorms for oral reading fluency.

LOOKING AT THE OVERALL IMPACT OF OUR READING MODEL :

24

Integrated Assessment Systems

Assessment

Instruction

Assessment Instruction

This is what we want..

Aligning Assessment and Instruction

Not this

26

Parent conferences

Identify students in need of interventions

Monitor improvement

Establish intervention groups

Write academic plans

27

To identify where additional resources and personnel in the classroom and across grade levels

To evaluate the effectiveness of the reading curriculum, instructional strategies and supplemental programs

To evaluate the effectiveness of building level strategies for facilities, finances and personnel

28

Identify schools in need of interventions

Review student outcomes across the grade levels and across the district

Plan professional development targeting student outcomes and student needs

29

Effectiveness of Tiered Intervention program

One of multiple indicators to move students in and through the intervention Tiers

30

Benchmarking- 3x a year◦ DIBELS/AIMSWEB

Reading K-8 Math 4-8

Progress Monitoring◦ Weekly : Tier II and Tier III

31

1. UNIVERSAL SCREENINGAND BENCHMARKING: EARLY LITERACY MEASURES, AS

DIBELS OR AIMSWEBCBM

(KEY CRITICAL INDICATORS)

FRAMEWORK FOR READING ASSESSMENT

STRATEGIC MONITORING (ROI)

PROGRESS MONITORING

(ROI)SYSTEMATIC PROBLEM SOLVING

PINPOINTING THE SPECIFIC AREA OF DIFFICULTY

TIER III

TIER II

TIER I 3 X PER YEAR

Every Week or 2X Month

EVERY WEEK

32

Frameworks for thinking and planning

33

How do we know what to use? Websites for Scientifically Based Reading Interventions

Florida Center for Reading Research: www.fcrr.orgOregon Reading First Center: reading.uoregon.eduTexas Center for Reading and Language Arts:www.texasreading.org

Fcrr reports 34



http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports

Florida Center for Reading Research

35

Researched Based Core Reading/Math Curriculum

FRAMEWORK for READING INTERVENTIONS

LexiaReading Plus

SRA DI PROGRAMS-READING MASTERY, HORIZONS, CORRECTIVE READING

EAROBBICS GREAT LEAPS /SLANT REWARDS 6 MIN. SOLUTIONS SRA DI PROGRAMS Lexia

TIER I.

TIER II.At-risk students-Supplemental interventions

TIER III.Highly at-risk studentsIntensive interventions

Students identified through data. PS team matches

students to appropriate

intervention - teacher, aide.

More intensive individual support-

K PALSM. HEGGERTY PROGRAM/

1ST GR. PALSEAROBICS

GREAT LEAPS/ SLANTREWARDS

Read Naturally6 MINUTE SOLUTIONS

SOAR TO SUCCESSREPEATED PRRASES, REPEATED READINGS

BRINGING WORDS TO LIFE, ELEMENTS OF READ-VOAB., CORE VOCAB. HANDBOOK.

MULTILEVEL VOCAB.PROGRAMMETACOGNITIVE STRAT.-

COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING

36

. Ensure implementation integrity of the intervention.

– Training & Guided practice with feedback (coaching)

– Intervention scripts or treatment manuals.

37

Intervention Integrity Checklist Check the boxes considered in developing your intervention integrity. Sign and date on the bottom of the form. 1. 1. Intervention is focused on area(s) of concern 1. 2. High Probability Interventions

a. Empirically supported b. Interventions are easy c. Interventions are positive (constructive/educative approaches) d. Are at childÕs instructional level

3. Treatment Integrity checks or intervention monitoring systems are employed:

Participant reports Outside sources Evaluation of permanent products Intervention script Guided Practice/Modeling

4. Consult and Support

Who When Frequency

Definitions of Checklist Guidelines

The following are definitions of the four areas above. These can be used to help in the development of an intervention integrity plan.

1. The intervention chosen is tied to the area of concern listed in your problem-solving. It is targeted to create behavior change and/or enhance the childÕs educational development.

2. This refers to choosing interventions that have a high probability of success. Successful

interventions are usually supported by research and have been utilized with positive results in an applied setting (such as a school.) Interventions should be free from complicated steps, positive rather than punitive in nature, and designed at the childÕs instructional level to lead to improved performance and skills.

3. These are ways to support the interventionist(s). Support can include: having the

interventionist report back as to how the intervention is going, having an outside person come and observe the intervention, evaluating the permanent products of the intervention (graphs, charts, etc), writing a script or outline for the intervention, or practicing/modeling the intervention before starting it. Please see team leader for examples of checklists/scripts.

38

Did I provide written cues at the beginning of each activity?

all the time sometimes never

Did I give a star if Molly followed directions?


Did I review the chart with Molly at the end of the day?


Molly is now able to follow directions….

most of the time sometimes never

This plan is effective……. most of the time sometimes never

39

1. Teacher self-report/implementation logs:◦ Teacher may be interviewed regarding steps followed

during intervention or keep a log of the steps implemented

2. Ratings scales:◦ Written step-by-step intervention plan can be used as

a checklist & implementer would complete checklist3. Direct Observation:

◦ Of teacher behavior could be conducted periodically during intervention (use of IPF)

4. Permanent Products:◦ Teacher/student created products that would

demonstrate the intervention components were implemented

40

Building-based Leadership Team Data Coach Problem-solving Process Decision Rules Regarding RtI Data Sources and Decision-Making Tier 1 Focus Standard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2 Intervention Support and Fidelity Technology Support Technical Assistance

42

Sustaining requires Documentation◦ Procedures Manual◦ Decision Rules◦ Forms that reflect and GUIDE the procedures◦ Nested in District Policy and Procedures◦ Reflected in professional educator evaluation

criteria

43

½ Day 3X a year

Standard Protocol – Entrance/Exit Criteria(3 points of data)◦ Reading Level and/or ISAT◦ Teacher Recommendation- Form◦ DIBELS/AIMSWEB Benchmarking◦ Progress Monitoring Graphs

44

Student Progress Monitoring: Is the student benefiting from the intervention?Is the student’s rate of improvement sufficient?Does the intervention need to be modified?

45

◦Is the student benefiting from the intervention?

◦Is the student’s rate of improvement sufficient?

◦Does the intervention need to be modified?

46

Name Current Tier Recommendation Changes Intervention

Peterson

II Continue Tier III 1st Grade Pals- Earobics

II Continue 1st Grade Pals- Earobics

II Continue 1st Grade Pals

SECOND GRADE

Gilbert

II Continue Read Naturally

III Continue Tier III Read Naturally/ Lexia

III Continue Tier III Read Naturally/Lexia

II (3 days) Continue Tier II (3 days) Read Naturally

II Int. w/ A. Carson Add to Tier II Lexia-Earobics

II Add to Tier II Read Naturally

Schwarting

II Reduce to 3 days a week Read Naturally


II (2days) Change to 3 days per week Read Naturally

II Continue Tier II Earobics for speech

II Add to Tier II Read Naturally

Swardenski

II Continue at Tier II- Oct.29 Pst Read Naturally


II Add to Tier II (3 days) Read Naturally

II Continue Earobics Step 2 for speech

II Continue Read Naturally (possible move)

47

Same team as Data Day Team ½ day approx. 1X monthly (4-6 Weeks) Individual problem solving w/ parent

◦ Tier III students and teacher referral students Teacher RtI Guide Binder (K-6 & 7-8) Teacher Interview Prior to Individual Child

PST Meeting

49

School-Wide Reading Improvement in a School Using Problem-Solving

Courtesy of Christine Martin, Indian Prairie School District, IL50

Special Education

General Education

General Education with Support

Severity of Educational Need or Problem

Am

ount

of R

esou

rces

Nee

ded

To

Ben

efit

51

Why hasn’t this old system of problem solving been very effective?

Because we’ve been trying to solve students’ problems one student at a time.

This has been impractical and too time intensive to be effective.

Currently 3-5% of students have individual PST meetings.

52

Bridging the Gap

CoreCore

3x/year 3x/year Am

ount

of R

esou

rces

Nee

ded

To

Ben

efit

Severity of Educational Need or Problem

Core + IntensiveCore + Intensive

WeeklyWeekly

Weekly-MonthlyWeekly-Monthly

Core + SupplementalCore + Supplemental

53

Bridging the GapCore + IntensiveCore + Intensive

CoreCore



3x/year 3x/year

WeeklyWeekly

Am

ount

of R

esou

rces

Nee

ded

To

Ben

efit

Severity of Educational Need or Problem54


CoreCore



3x/year 3x/year

WeeklyWeekly

Am

ount

of R

esou

rces

Nee

ded

To

Ben

efit


Services must link with accountability systems (AYP, ISAT, NCLB)

Intervention plans must attend to academic progress issues (Reading!)

Response to intervention will be a primary eligibility criteria for access to some services (e.g., LD, “II”, “III”)

Effective problem solving process a high priority◦ STICK TO THE PROBLEM SOLVING STEPS- put steps on

overhead…helps team/parent and time keeper

57

The 4 BIG IDEAS of Problem Solving

4. EvaluateDid our plan

work?

2. AnalyzeWhy is it Why is it

happening?happening?

1. DEFINE THE PROBLEMIs there a problem? What is it?Is there a problem? What is it?

3. Develop a PlanWhat shall we do What shall we do

about it?about it?58

Principal Assistant Principal Regular Education Teacher Special Education Teacher Student Services Data Coach Reading Support Behavior Support Speech Pathologist

59

Each team member should have an assigned role

Training should occur on each role

We’ve added some new roles to the team

61

Gathers and Organizes Tier 1 and Tier 2 Data

Supports staff for small group and individual data

Provides coaching for data interpretation

Facilitates regular data meetings for building and grade levels

62

Sets vision for problem-solving process

Supports development of expectations

Responsible for allocation of resources

Facilitates priority setting Ensures follow-up Supports program evaluation Monitors staff support/climate

63

Ensures pre-meeting preparation Reviews steps in process and desired

outcomes Facilitates movement through steps Facilitates consensus building Sets follow-up schedule/communication Creates evaluation criteria/protocol Ensures parent involvement

64

Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff

All intervention plans should have intervention support

Principals should ensure that intervention plans have intervention support

Teachers should not be expected to implement plans for which there is no support

65

Support for Intervention Integrity

Documentation of Intervention Implementation

Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical components

66

Pre-meeting◦Review data◦Review steps to intervention◦Determine logistics

First 2 weeks◦2-3 meetings/week◦Review data◦Review steps to intervention◦Revise, if necessary

67

Second Two Weeks◦ Meet twice each week

Following weeks◦ Meet at least weekly◦ Review data◦ Review steps◦ Discuss Revisions

Approaching benchmark◦ Review data◦ Schedule for intervention fading◦ Review data

68

Go In with a Plan

70

Living in a house… as it’s still being planned and built.

71

Step 1 - Go with the people that are interestedStep 2 – Develop a building planStep 3 – Conduct Universal Screenings (3 times per

year)Step 4- Implement Tier 2 interventions – “In God

we trust, everyone else bring data”Step 5 – Implement Tier 3 interventions & train in

school-based problem solvingStep 6 - target professional development to the

school

72

Plan on 3-6 years Take it one step (e.g., skill) at a time. Start with young students (Kgn/DIBELS) Consider Tier 1 issues Create Tier 2 options with existing staff and

resources Develop a 5 year PDP for staff Ease their job with social support and

technology Use networks-avoid “reinventing” the

wheel.

73

Critical Acti vities in the Implementation of a RtI/PS Model for Enhancing Student Progress (Draft) This document is divided into three parts: over-arching activities of a school-based leadership team; activities related to establishing a tiered system of prevention/intervention; and activities related to the problem-solving process. These activities are occurring simultaneously in many instances and the listing in each section is not necessarily in chronological order. In addition, during the implementation of these components, ongoing professional development and increasing proficiency and complexity are occurring. Activities of a school-based leadership team

study an d learn about response-to-intervention and problem-solving establish school-based core leadership representing different grades and role

responsibi lities within the school that will oversee the implementation of RtI/PS obtain st aff commitment for beginning implementation of a RtI/PS system develop an information dissemination plan about RtI/PS to school district staff, parents,

board of education and community establish a process for obtaining consumer feedback (staff, parents, students ) on the impact

of RtI/PS collect school problem-solving and benchmark data to evaluate system-wide (school,

district) impacts and implementation problems systematically review student achievement data to determine need for system-wide

curricular or instructional changes develop a Ņnext-stepsÓ plan for continues implementation of RtI/PS the following year develop a plan for informing, training and mentoring new staff members revise special education policies and procedures to incorporate data from a RtI/PS process establish a process for responding to requests for information and for site visits

Activities related to establishing a tiered system of prevention/intervention

implement a Universal General Outcome Screening/Benchmarking data program in early literacy and reading to identify at-risk and intensive need students

use general outcome measurement data to progress monitor strategic and intensive need students

8.

74

www.interventioncentral.org (Tools) www.aimsweb.com (Aimsweb) www.fcrr.org (Florida Center for Reading

Research) http://reading.uoregon.edu/ (Big Ideas in

Reading) www.studentprogress.org (National Center

for Student Progress Monitoring)

75




Dr. Barb Curl Dr. Sharon Vaughn Dr. David Tilly Dr. Mark Shinn Ms. Judy Hackett Dr. Tim Thomas International

Reading Association

Dr. Reid Lyon Dr. Joseph Torgesen Florida Center for

Reading Research Ms. Melissa Ward

We would like to thank the following institutions and/or individuals for their wisdom and select slides for this presentation.

76

Meg Thurman: [email protected] 309-359-5480

Michele Jacobs: [email protected], 309359-4321

77

Flowchart For Problem Resolution

Don’t Mess With It!

YES NO

YES

YOU IDIOT!NO

Will it Blow UpIn Your Hands?

NO

Look The Other Way

Anyone ElseKnows? You’re SCREWED!

YESYES

NO

Hide ItCan You Blame Someone Else?

NO

NO PROBLEM!Yes

Is It Working?

Did You Mess With It?

78

rti tips & tricks of the trade: fourth year of implementation

Documents

core reading programsif

reading mastery

director of special

macmillanmcgrawhill

core supplementalmonthly

numbers of students

supplemental instruction

better support system