FloridaRtI.usf.edu

Florida’s Project

A collaborative project between the Florida Department of Education and the University of South Florida

Project Staff

Project Co-Directors• George Batsche and Michael Curtis

University of South Florida

Project Leader• Clark Dorman

Dorman@coedu.usf.edu

Regional Coordinators /Trainers

• Beth Hardcastle - NorthHardcast@coedu.usf.edu

• Denise Bishop - CentralBishop@tempest.coedu.usf.edu

• Kelly Justice - South Justice@coedu.usf.edu

Web Address

www.Floridarti.usf.edu

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

5-10% 5-10%

10-15% 10-15%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

75-85% 75-85%Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

A School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Tiers of Problem Solving

I

II

III

Problem Identification

Problem Analysis

Intervention Design

Responseto

Intervention

Why is it occurring?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% C

om

pli

an

ce

35%

Benchmark75%

= Peer Group = Aim Line

BASELINE

Problem Identification

• Benchmark Level 75%

• Current Level 20%

• Peer Level 35%

• Benchmark Gap 75/20=3.7X

• Peer Gap 35/20=1.7X

• Peer/Benchmark Gap 75/35=2+X

• UNIVERSAL INTERVENTION FIRST

Tier 1 —Universal Interventions

25 2328

3540

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% C

om

pli

an

ce

• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support

• Grade Level Social Skill Training

35%

50%

55%

60%

Benchmark75%

= Peer Group

= Target Student

= Aim Line

= Trend Line

PS/RtI Integrates Efforts

PS / RtI

PS/RtI ProjectPartners

• FCRR

• Positive Behavior Support

• Early Intervention

• DOE Projects

State Project:Critical Components

1. Statewide Training in Problem-Solving/RtI

2. Focused Training in Demonstration Districts and Pilot Schools

3. Statewide Evaluation Plan

4. Project Linkage with Existing State Initiatives

Project Communication

• Web Site

Project Update, Training Materials

• Quarterly Newsletter

• List-serves

• Coordination with DOE Communication Venues

• Coordination with State Level Associations

Statewide PS/RtI Training

• Three-Year Initial Training Agenda

• Year One-Training

5 Days Across Year

Conducted in Multiple Sites within Regions

Target Audience is School-Based Teams

Evaluation of Skill Components and Beliefs

Statewide PS/RtI Training

• General components Problem Solving Process Data-Based Decision Making Tiered System of Intervention Delivery Progress Monitoring Criteria for Intervention Effectiveness

Statewide PS/RtI Training

• 4 sites X 3 Regions

• Begin Fall 2007

• 3-1-1 annual curriculum Three year sequence Initial training focused on Tier One

Statewide Technical Assistance

Year One- Technical Assistance

Quarterly Meetings within region

Content based on participant needs assessment

Group format but focused on specific topics

Supported by web-based technical assistance

Mini-Grant Process

• Regional Mini-Grant Application Meetings held in Spring, 2007 in each of three regions

• April deadline for application

• Scoring rubric used to evaluate applications

• Multi-stage process to select Demonstration Districts

Example of Scoring Rubric

2. District, Pilot, & Comparison School Data

Evaluation Scoring - 30 points*

• Detailed and Current Demographic Data for District Pilot Schools Comparisons Schools

*District - 10*Mean across pilot schools - 15*Mean across comparison pilot schools - 5

Mini-Grant Application Evaluation

Total Points were an important consideration in district selection.

-also important to have a diversity of students, schools, and districts

Additional factors considered:• Size of districts (small, medium, large)• Geographic location• Student population demographics• Inclusion of D/F schools

Demonstration Districts andPilot Schools

• Eight Diverse Districts in Three Regions

Very Large (362,000 students)

Small (6,900 students)

• 38 Pilot Schools

• Comparison Schools in same districts

• District Leadership Team

• School Leadership Team

• School-based Coach (1 FTE/3 Schools)

Demonstration Districts

Project Commitment to Demonstration Districts

• Support dedicated full-time Problem Solving / Response to Intervention Coach for three pilot schools

• Assist schools in developing effective Problem Solving Teams Training Technical Assistance

• Provide guidance in creating tiered systems of student support

• Support data management and analysis• Evaluate the impact of Ps/RtI Model

Evaluation Plan

• Assess Impact of Model

Educator/parent beliefs, satisfaction

Relationship of integrity of implementation to outcomes

Building-level factors

• Referrals, Placements, Behavior, Disproportionality

Student Outcomes

• Achievement, Behavior

Demonstration Sites

Expectations of Demonstration Districts and Pilot Sites

Collaboration between General Ed, Special Ed, and other projects

People with expertise - district and school level teams

Funds/Resources - evidenced based instruction and intervention

Professional Development

Policies and Procedures

Technology/Data Systems

Making changes when the data indicate

Demonstration Sites:Getting Started

• Regional Administrative Orientation Meetings held in May/June, 2007

• Regional Coordinators Complete “Coaching Training” June, 2007

• Training for Coaches July 9 – 13, 2007

• School-Based Year One Training To Begin in Fall, 2007

Systems change

Systemic change is a cyclical process in which the impact of change on all parts of the whole and their relationships to one another are taken into consideration. In the contexts of schools, it is not so much a detailed prescription for improving education as a philosophy advocating reflecting, rethinking, and restructuring.

(Educational Systemic Change Tools, 2007)

What do we know about systems change?

• Communicate a clear and common vision

• Planned and pursued in a systematic manner over time

• One size does NOT fit all

• Professional development is critical

• Outcome evaluation is NON-NEGOTIABLE!

Why have past initiatives failed?

• Failure to achieve CONSENSUS• School culture is ignored• Purpose unclear• Lack of ongoing communication• Unrealistic expectations of initial success• Failure to measure and analyze progress• Participants not involved in planning…

Florida Change Model

Consensus

Infrastructure

Implementation

Consensus Building

• Educators will embrace new ideas when two conditions exist: They understand the NEED for the idea They perceive that they either have the

SKILLS to implement the idea OR they have the SUPPORT to develop the skills

How can we work smarter?

• Explain “the why”

• Provide a clear vision

• Explain the scope and sequence

• Start listening

• Provide incentives

District-Level

Support of District Leadership

Requires you to:• Possess knowledge of PS/RtI• Create a climate of change• Ensure necessary professional

development• Manage resources• Provide accountability

Role of District Leaders

• Give “permission” for model

• Provide a vision for outcome-based service delivery

• Reinforce effective practices

• Expect accountability

• Provide tangible support for effort Training Coaching Technology Policies

Scaling Up

• How much can you support?

• Start at elementary level (K-3) for comprehensive program

• Consider implementing data-based decision making at other levels

• Expand full range of the model slowly to other levels

Challenges for Leadership

• General Education/Special Education Partnership• Policies and Procedures

Implications for Due Process and Procedural Safeguards

• Professional Development• Modeling Data-Based Decision Making• Communication!!!!!

School Boards Teachers Students Parents

General Education/Special Education:A Necessary Partnership

• The “Players” Curriculum and Instruction Reading Special Education Student Services Instructional Technology Parent Representation

General Education/Special Education:A Necessary Partnership

• The “Goals” Assess effectiveness of Tier 1 Assess types of referrals/requests for assistance Determine levels of disproportionality Determine focus, type and effectiveness of Tier 2 services Determine focus of “Early Intervening Services” Commit to data-based decision making Evaluate programs and interventions in terms of

student outcome data

Leadership Level: Policies and Procedures

• Consistent implementation across settings - a requirement to meet procedural safeguards test

• Policies Needed: How data-based decision making will be applied in general and

special education Decision-rules for interpretation of data in both general and

special education Application of RtI practices to LD eligibility and other regulatory

applications Role of parents in the process Criteria for “independent evaluations” in the new model

Leadership Level: Policies and Procedures

• Procedures Needed: Problem-solving steps and definitions for each step Decision-rules for determining response to intervention Data and decision-rules necessary for LD eligibility Acceptable methods of data collection Methods of documentation Intervention Support Parent involvement, parent permission for evaluation

Communication with…

• School Boards Improves student performance Reduces disproportionality Improves AYP

• Teachers How data-based decision-making improves outcomes,

focuses instruction, improves efficiency. Support for interventions

Communication with…

• Parents Purpose of Problem-Solving/RtI Impact on student outcomes Due Process issues Early Intervention Progress Monitoring Partnership

• Students Goal setting and progress monitoring Intervention fidelity

Professional Development

• Understand what RtI is, the need for it, and the support required

• Understand the research regarding student outcomes• Know how to interpret student data, all three tiers, in

terms of RtI and implications for interventions• Improve skills in data collection

Progress Monitoring Data Observation Data

• Know sources of evidence-based interventions• Know criteria for effective intervention support• Data coaches and facilitators

Building-Level

Pilot School Training

• Three-Year Initial Training Agenda

• Year One-Training

5 Days Across Year

Conducted in Pilot Schools within Regions

Target Audience is School-Based Teams

School support by Coaches and Regional Coordinators

Pilot School Technical Assistance

• Year One- Technical Assistance

Site Based

Monthly Coaches Support Meetings

Quarterly Administrative Support Meetings

Coordination with District Leadership Team

Role of the Principal

• 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

The Principal:Content Knowledge

• Understanding of: Need for universal, supplemental and intensive instructional

strategies and interventions Components of a successful PDP Need for and skills in data-based decision-making and the need

to share outcome data frequently Need to publicly recognize the relationship between staff efforts

and student outcomes Need to involve and inform parents of the essential elements of

RtI and their role in the process

Role of PS/RtI Coaches

• Mentor for School-Based Teams

• Technical Assistance in PS/RtI

• Data Collection

• Data Analysis

• Dissemination of Student Outcome Data

Coach Skills & Attributes

• Must be excellent teachers (foremost) strong communicators

• Should be: flexible in terms of developing schedules highly skilled at building trusting relationships ambitious about the change process respectful of teachers and the demands of the classroom skilled at working with data have effective problem-solving skills

Coach Skills & Attributes

"Effective coaches embody...a 'compelling combination of personal humility and professional will.' They are affirmative, humble, and deeply respectful of classroom teachers, but they are unwilling to rest unless they achieve significant improvements in teaching and learning in their schools.”

• (Instructional Coaching/The School Administrator, April 2006)

Building Level Challenges

• Consensus Building Need and Support for Interventions/Data Use of building-specific data to make case Data on outcomes for at-risk students

• Tier 1 Capacity Building Early Intervening Services Prioritizing Services

• Early Intervention• Standard Protocol or Group Diagnostics• Data

Availability Management

• Integrating Tiers 1,2 and 3• Intervention Fidelity

Data-based Decisions“In God We Trust-Everyone Else Brings

DATA!”

• School Wide Screenings (Is Tier 1 Working?) FCAT data – is curriculum working for all groups?

• What is Needed for Tier 2 Interventions?) Reading Math Other Content Areas

• Diagnostic Assessment (Informs Intensive Interventions-Tier 3)

• Progress Monitoring- Used to Evaluate Effectiveness of Interventions

Building Level Challenges:DATA

• Collection What is collected and who collects it? How frequently is it collected?

• Organization Disaggregated by grade, gender, race, language,

SES? Designed to answer specific questions (Tier 1/2

effectiveness?

Building Level Challenges:DATA

• Management Technology is imperative AIMS-WEB, Wireless Generation Local Programs

• Display-necessary to evaluate RtI Goals/Benchmarks Aimline Trendline Rate

Integrating the Tiers

• Tier 1 (Core) instruction present at all three levels

• Purpose of Tier 2 is to improve success in Tier 1

• Purpose of Tier 3 is to improve success in Tier 2

• Is there a single “intervention” plan made up of different Tier services?

Integrating the Tiers

• 5th grade student reading at the 2nd grade level Tier 3

• Direct Instruction, Targeted, Narrow Focus Tier 2

• Fluency, comprehension, pre-teach for Tier 1 Tier 1

• Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted decoding

• How/where would special education fit into this?

Problem Solving Teams

• A school-based group composed of various school personnel who convene to 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

Team Membership

• Broad Participation Model Composed primarily of general education teachers

who address challenges through the problem solving process

• Case Management Model Composed of general education teachers and

specialists who are assigned as consultants/case managers depending on problem identification

(Iverson, 2005)

Problem-Solving Teams

• Apply a systematic problem solving process

• Focus on modifying instructional environment to support students

• Use interventions that have been determined to have a high probability of success given the problem identified

• Collect relevant data and monitor student progress frequently to assess student’s response to the interventions

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

Intervention Support

• 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

Intervention Support

• 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

Intervention Support

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

• Approaching benchmark Review data Schedule for intervention fading Review data

Important Questions

• Is this just another way to do child study?• Have we focused primarily on Tier 3?• Is our first focus on improving Tier 1?• Does level and type of instruction vary across buildings

based on student need and performance (e.g., 90 minutes vs 180 minutes of reading/language arts?

• Do we use data to make decisions all the time?• Do we have regular data meetings to evaluate student

performance?• Do we have a data coach in each building?

Important Questions

• Do teachers think that we need to do this stuff and “then we can test the student?”

• Do parents believe that this is a “delay tactic?”• Do we have expectations for Tier 2 (e.g., Title 1)

intervention effectiveness--do we evaluate it?• Do we monitor students receiving special education

services more frequently than all other students?• Do we really believe that almost all students can achieve

state-approved grade level benchmarks?• Is our continuum of services fully integrated?