Secondary Systems Overview

What to Know Before Venturing Out of Bounds

OrRTI ProjectJanuary 15, 2009

Objectives:

Provide an overview of secondary systems requirements

Build background and common language for those less familiar with RTI

Share some exciting data to get you pumped up!

Multi-tiered Instruction & RTI

Multi-tiered, Research-based Core Curriculum & Interventions

Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring

StandardizedDecision Rules &

Procedures

Integrity of Implementation and

SustainabilityRTI

Identification of Learning Disabilities

Effective Teaming &

Problem Solving

The Big Picture Leadership at all levels Teaming Use of a research based core reading

curriculum Universal screening Implementation of research based interventions Progress monitoring Policy and procedure development

(standardization) Professional development including fidelity of

implementation.

LeadershipTop-Down

Leadership priority Strategic planning Budget planning Support and buy-in for systemic,

consistent programs School improvement plans

Bottom-up School literacy committees

participated in training and planning Teacher-teams identified key

literacy strategies for training and roll-out

Literacy committees reviewed curriculum and selected intervention programs

TeamingMembers might

include… Principal Instructional

Coordinator Counselor Special Ed Rep ELL Rep Alt Ed Content Area or

Cluster Teams

Core Program Evidence-based

English/Language Arts curriculum

Common agreements around content and standards

Literacy strategies taught and utilized across content areas

Universal Screening Universal screening occurs for ALL students

at least three times per year (fall, winter, spring)

Screening identifies which students are making progress in the core curriculum (80%) and which are in need of further support (20%).

Data should be used to start conversations about:If the core is meeting the needs of most

students (including most students in each subgroup)

Which students need additional intervention

Interventions Research-based Increase the intensity of instruction

More timeSmaller groups

Regularly monitored Delivered as designed

Progress Monitoring All students

receiving interventions should be progress monitored

Frequency is determined by district decision rules (twice per month

in TTSD secondary schools)

Progress monitoring with MazeIntervention Progress Monitoring

4 5 68

4

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sep-0

7

Oct

-07

Nov

-07

Dec

-07

Jan-

08

Feb-

08

Mar

-08

Apr-

08

May

-08

Jun-

08

Monitoring/ Correct

Baseline/ Benchmark

Aimline

Trendline

Grade: 8

Teacher Name: Goldman

School: School of Dan

Probe Name: Maze

Cor

rect

Res

pon

ses/

Min

.

David Putnam

Intervention: Soar

3 to 4 Data-points Below the

Aimline

Intervention Change:

“Language C” with Randall

Policy and Procedure Development

The RTI process replaces a standardized (IQ) test, RTI also requires standard administration

Districts adopt common procedures for doing this work:

ProtocolsDecision RulesFormsSpEd Procedures

Professional Development

Topics:Core curriculum and instruction InterventionsAssessmentTeamingData-based decision makingSpecial Education

The Big Picture Leadership at all levels Teaming Use of a research based core reading

curriculum Universal screening Implementation of research based interventions Progress monitoring Policy and procedure development

(standardization) Professional development including fidelity of

implementation.

Next Steps in TTSD EBIS Decision Rules need to be evaluated

(screening/intensifying/exiting) Evaluation of current Core curricula – are

all content teachers consistently using the literacy strategies in their classes?

Ratcheting up of New Teacher Program Evaluate fidelity across classrooms and

schools Implement Team Coaching Model with

Curriculum & Instruction TOSAs

Is All This Work Really Worth It?

Progress monitoring tools:Maze-CBMGRADE+Measures within curriculum

Program evaluation:OAKSGRADE+GradesOffice Discipline Referrals Attendance

Average Office Discipline Referrals by Grades for Students in High School Reading Interventions 2006-07

0.25 0.3

2.1

0.66

0.91

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

A B C D F

Grades

Average Absences by Grades Earned for All TTSD Students In Secondary Literacy Interventions

3

4 4

5

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

GradesColumn 1 3 4 4 5 8

A B C D F

n = 1755

n = 1572

n = 1223

n = 721

n = 756

Ab

sen

ce

s

Student Grades by Average Correct Responses on 3-Minute Maze

37.5437.5636.2

32.1

24.9

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

A B C D F

Grades

Racial Proportionality of Students in

Reading Interventions vs. TTSD Student Body (Grades 6-12)2007-08 Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation

1%4% 4%

41%

49%

1%1%

7%

2%

13%

1%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Students in Reading Interventions 1% 4% 4% 41% 49% 1%

All TTSD 1% 7% 2% 13% 76% 1%

American Indian/ Alask

a Native

Asian/ Pacific Islander

Black Latino White Unknown

Special Program Proportionality of Students in Reading Interventions vs. TTSD Student Body (Grades 6-12)

2007-08 Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation

49%

23%

9%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Students in Reading Interventions 49% 23%

All TTSD Grades 6-12 9% 7%

Special Education English Language Learners

All Stu

dent

s in Inter

vent

ions

MS L

angu

age!

Soar to

Succ

ess

HS Lan

guag

e

HS Stra

tegies

Expected Gain

Average Maze Gain

5.90

5.00

8.93

3.70 3.94

2.532.55 2.59

2.552.35

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Average Maze-CBM Gain vs. Expected Gain ~ By Curriculum 2007-08 Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation

Expected Gain

Average Maze Gain

2007-08 Change on Grade+ Assessment(1st Semester pre-test/ post-test)

31

34

37

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pre-Test Semester 1 3 31

Post-Test Semester 1 4 37

Stanine Percentile

Intact Student Performance on OAKS Reading 2006-07* to 2007-08 by Intervention Program

Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation

11%

2%

9%

13%

22%

32%

35%

30%

23%

8%

38%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

*High School students' 8th grade state assessment scores (2005-06) used as baseline for 07-08 results

% Meet/ Exceed 2005-06 (Prior to Intervention 11% 2% 9% 13%

% Meet/ Exceed 2006-07 22% 23% 32% 35%

% Meet/ Exceed 2007-08 19% 8% 30% 38%

All Students in Interventions Language Soar to Success HS Strategies*

Average RIT Gains on the 2006-07 Oregon Statewide Assessment Secondary Literacy Initiative - Program Evaluation

2.25

3.993.944.28

5.43

6.44

5.33

4.224.21

8.93

6.14

4.24

1.6

2.65

3.56

7.67

0

2

4

6

8

10

6th 7th 8th 10th

All MIM

All TTSD

MiM Did Not Meet

Secondary Lit Students

The Growth Target: Want to Beat the

Average RIT Gain in Mastery in Motion

for Students that Did Not Meet