successful implementation of rti at the secondary level: strategies and solutions learned
DESCRIPTION
Successful Implementation of RtI at the Secondary Level: Strategies and Solutions Learned. Presented by Sara Johnson, Assistant Principal Dave Ertl, Principal Chisago Lakes High School Holly Windram, Asst. Special Education Director SCRED March 26, 2009. Introductions. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Successful Implementation of RtI at the Secondary Level: Strategies and Solutions
Learned
Presented by
Sara Johnson, Assistant PrincipalDave Ertl, Principal
Chisago Lakes High SchoolHolly Windram, Asst. Special Education Director
SCREDMarch 26, 2009
Introductions
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Get ready for the journey
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 Three-Tier ModelSchool-Wide Systems for Student Success
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Academic SystemsRtI
Behavior SystemsPBIS
SCRED RtI Model: Academics and Social/Emotional/Behavior
Ass
essm
en
t
Instru
ctio
n
Problem-Solving & Organization
Tier 1: All
Tier 2: Few
Tier 3: Some
Why RtI at the Secondary Level?
“Shouldn’t all the Special Ed kids be identified already?”“I’m here to teach the kids who show up to learn.”“I have to get through my content and you want me to teach
[insert 1 million other things here]”“Won’t I have to do more work?”“How is this relevant to me - today - right now?”“It’s just another initiative.”“When is lunch?”“Is this workshop over yet?”
Why RtI at the Secondary Level
• NCLB
• IDEA 2004
• Prevention
We need more options
Traditional Model
Special Education
General Education
Sea of kids in the “gray” area
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Am
oun
t of
Res
ourc
es N
eed
ed T
o B
enef
it
Special Education
General Education
General Education with Support
New System of Problem Solving
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Am
oun
t of
Res
ourc
es N
eed
ed T
o B
enef
it
Bridging the GapCore + IntensiveCore + Intensive
CoreCore
Weekly-MonthlyWeekly-Monthly
Core + SupplementalCore + Supplemental
3x/year 3x/year
WeeklyWeekly
Am
ou
nt
of
Res
ou
rces
Nee
ded
To
B
enef
it
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Ready?
Pop Quiz
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Chisago Lakes High School• 1200 students• 10% special education• 8% free/reduced lunch• 1% English Language Learning• Four, 85 minute blocks• 98% graduation rate• Credit increase: 29 by 2009-10
Windram & Johnson, 2008
02-03 School Year:Catalyst for Change
• Incoming 9th graders.• Top concerns: academic skills, social
interactions, and work completion issues
Sound familiar?
Ninth grade
“If you want to reshape high school, start by changing ninth grade.”
“. . . success or failure in ninth grade is a pivotal indicator of whether or not a student drops out.”
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Timeline
Year 1 (03-04): Problem-Solving Team and Process
Year 2 (04-05): Intervention Integrity and STP Intervention development
Year 3 (05-06): RtI English 9 classYear 4 (06-07): RtI English 10, CLHS “Check
& Connect”Year 5 (07-08): See table
Windram & Johnson, 2008
CLHS Three Tier RtI Model: ExamplesLevel Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s)
TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs ODRs MTS
TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs ODRs
TIER 2 Advisement Correctives (2x term) (STP) RtI 9 English class (STP) RtI 10 English class (STP) English 9 skinny classes (STP) Pre-Algebra (STP) Problem solving interventions CLHS “Check & Connect” (STP)
Grades/Credits CBM Reading & Writing CBM Reading & Writing Grades CBM Math Applications CBMs, Grades/Credits, MAPs Grades/Credits, “mini” SEI
TIER I Advisement Grade Checks (2x term) 9th grade common expectations (planners) 9th grade Link Crew NCA Goal instruction
Grades/Credits Grades/Credits Grades/Credits SEI MAZE
Timeline for decision-making
Start with
DATA
Windram & Johnson, 2008
CLHS: Problem Solving
• Student Assistance Team (Regular Education) = Problem-Solving Team
• Problem-Solving Team Members: Assistant Principal, guidance counselors, school psychologist, school nurse, police liaison officer, truancy prevention, chemical health, and mental health.
• Weekly, Monday AM• 1x month data reviews with small group: AP,
Counselors, School Psych., truancy, RtI Coach
SCRED Problem-Solving Model
1. Problem Identification
What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?
2. Problem Analysis
Why is the problem occurring?
3. Plan Development
What is the goal?What is the intervention plan to address this goal?
How will progress be monitored?
4. PlanImplementation
How will implementation integrity be ensured?
5. Plan Evaluation
Is the intervention plan effective?
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Problem-Solving Process at CLHSStep 1: Student referred to SAT/Problem-Solving
Team via counselors from teachers, parents, etc. Step 2: Problem Identification data are collectedStep 3: Team prioritizes problem & decides next step:
• Level 1: Grade Level Team or Consultation/follow-up• Level 2: Support Staff Consultation • Level 3: Refer for STP• Level 4: Extended Problem-Solving Team referral• Refer to SST for consideration of SE evaluation
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Who collects the data?
Attendance/grades/credits Counselors Educational History Counselors/School Psych Health review Counselors/School Nurse Observation School Psych/Paraprofessional Interviews: Parent, teacher(s), student Counselors, School Psych TIES Web Portal: CBM benchmarks (rdg, wtg, math) 3x year, K-8 NWEA MAPs (rdg, math) 2x year, Fall & Spring MCAIIs/GRAD
Counselors/School Psych/AP
Current CBM Paraprofessional
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Data Reviews
• RtI students and Alt English and Math: 2x per term• Teachers identify students of concern prior to meeting• Graph review and problem-solving done as a team• RtI Teachers, Principal, Asst. Principal, 1 or more
counselors, School Psychologist• 1x month for students in Problem-Solving
• CBM graphs• Check & Connect data
Windram & Johnson, 2008
RtI English classes
• Daily, one 85 minute block, all year• DOUBLE the instructional time!!!!• Typical English 9 & 10: 1 block, 1 semester
• Reading & writing interventions 30-40 min. daily• Core English 9 & 10 curriculum taught
• Modified pace • Adapted based on students’ needs
• CBM Reading & Writing data collected on every student• Data reviews 2x per quarter
Critical features of remedial literacy instruction at the secondary level
• Effective professional development• Effective instructional tools incl. core curriculum and
instructional methodology• System reorganization and support• Formative and summative assessment• Building/classroom climate that fosters high student
engagement• Committee/Team
(e.g., Allain, 2008; Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2004; Diamond, 2004)
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Who are the teachers• English Teachers: Enthusiastic, experience
with “at-risk” learners• Intervention Specialists• These were already existing positions
Windram & Johnson, 2008
How Students Are Selected RtI Eng 9
• Spring of 8th grade, teachers introduce class to students and families
• Not required• About 18-24 students per year
Windram & Johnson, 2008
How students are selectedMultiple data sources and indicators of student
engagement:• CBM scores• MAPs• State level reading tests• Attendance and grades• Current 8th grade class enrollment• 8th grade problem-solving status• Eighth grade teacher input and recommendation• No specific/formal entrance or exit criteria
Windram & Johnson, 2008
RtI English 9: First quarter
• Three goals:1. Build relationships with students2. Establish regular cycle of CBM data
collection & review. Set up graphs.3. Apply problem-solving model for
intervention decisions: what and for whom• Professional Development
Windram & Johnson, 2008
First quarter supplemental instruction
Whole group academic interventions for reading fluency and writing mechanics• Daily Oral Language (DOL)
• Six Minute Solution (Adams & Brown, 2003)Peer tutoring, reading fluency building intervention. Same-level pairs, students engage in repeated readings of
1-minute nonfiction passages as their partners note the number of words read correctly.
Windram & Johnson, 2008
RtI English Classes
• End of first quarter: Identify additional needs at class, small group, and individual level.
• Rest of the year:• On-going data collection and reviews
• Problem-solving for class, small group, and individual level
• Adapt supplemental instruction for basic reading and writing skills based on student need
PLC Goal: RtI Eng 9• Increase class average ORF through a motivation
intervention (i.e. one on one graph reviews).• October 2009: Average was 125.35 wrc• By June 2009: Average of 140.35 wrc• February 2009: Average was 142.23 wrc
Avg growth was 1.13 wrc per week** 15 words in 17 weeks. Winter break weeks not included.
SCRED Target Scores
CBM ORF: 170 words read correct
CBM Correct Word Sequences: 64
MAP R RIT: 226
MAP M RIT: 235 – Algebra I
RtI Eng 9 ORF WRC Avg Growth
2
11
3
11
3
7
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08
Number of students
Series1
RtI Eng 9 CWS Average Growth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08
Number of students
Series1
RtI Eng 9 Achieved MAP R Benchmark
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08
Number of Students
Series1
RtI Eng 9 MAP R RIT Growth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th
Cohort and Grade
Amount of RIT Growth
Series1
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
What happened here?
Special Education: SLD
SCRED districts use a SRBI process for SLD eligibility.
CLHS:
05-06: 1 student
06-07: 1 student
07-08: 0 students
Percent of Students making adequate growth on MAP: Grade 9 English programs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms
RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms
2005-06 2006-07
Percent of Students
Case Study: Jimmy
Case Study: Jimmy - 7th Grade Level
Case Study: Jimmy - 8th Grade Level
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Other Tier 2 Programming• Interventions with certified staff• Master schedule for interventions• Resource Room support staff progress monitoring• CLHS “Check & Connect” at two levels:
• Correctives (Tier 1 & 2)
• CLHS “Check & Connect” = modified Check & Connect (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/check_conn/index.asp;
Christianson, et al.) and Behavior Education Program (Crone et al.,
2004)
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Program Failure Rates
28% 29%
12%
35%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 4
Terms
Percentage of Classes Failed
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Program Referral Rates
17
21
13
28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4
Terms
Number of Referrals
Windram & Johnson, 2008
What is the influence on schoolwide outcomes
????
Windram & Johnson, 2008
16.5
14 14.3
11
10.1
22.7
13.7
16.1
14.1
9.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
School Year
Percent
% Failure Rate Term 1 ALL
% Failure Rate Term 1 9th Grade
Windram & Johnson, 2008
CLHS School-wide MAZE data
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006
# correct on MAZE
12
11
10
9
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Chisago Lakes Middle School• 816 students• 10% special education• 15% free/reduced lunch• 1% English Language Learning• Seven period day• Daily homeroom - CORE Connect
Windram & Johnson, 2008
CLMS Three Tier RtI Model: Examples
Level Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s) TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs
TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs
ODRs TIER 2 RtI Communications (gr. 6-8) (STP)
RtI Math (gr. 6-8) (STP) CLMS “Check & Connect” (STP)
CBM Reading & Writing CBM Math Applications Grades/Credits, DPRs
TIER I CORE Connect Wall of Fame Good Cat Caught in the Act Wildcat Eye on Success Golden Plunger
Grades/ODRs Grades/Credits SEI
0 %
2 0 %
4 0 %
6 0 %
8 0 %
1 0 0 %
3 . 5 0 %
8 . 3 0 %
8 8 . 2 0 %
Rush City High School
Math Lab
1 certified teacher and 1 paraprofessional
28 students (8-11 grade)
-9th grade, did not meet MAP Goal of 235 (needed for Algebra)
- Did not pass BSTs
Scierka 2008
Growth on MAP
20 20 20
16
1413
1211
109
8 8 8
65
3
1 1
-2
11
21
11
21
7
11
7
0 0
12
4
6 6
-1
-7
10
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Alcock, BrandiFletcher, ThorenGilliland, MeganStenger, Matthew
Carlson, TylerBaldwin, Chase
Behrendt, Rhiannon
Orr, Dina
Turner, EthanScheffer, JordanMorrow, Kaylynn
Skogman, Samantha
Hughes, KevinScheffer, JennaNowak, TuckerJohnson, Andrew
Poorker, JustinRewey, Andrew
Fleming, Kassaundra
Number of RIT points
Growth from Fall to Win Growth from Fall to Spring
0 means no change from fall to springno red bar, no 0 means no spring test data
Scierka 2008
Student performance compared with estimated MCA-II GRAD
223
214
202
211
223
227
216
226
244
236233
218
233
237
225
230227
234
221223
227
217
221
205
216
210
243
234
222
227
237240
228
237
254
245
228231
225 226
208
253
236
254
226
242239
241244
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
Alcock, BrandiFletcher, ThorenGilliland, Megan
Stenger, Matthew
Carlson, TylerBaldwin, Chase
Behrendt, Rhiannon
Orr, Dina
Turner, EthanScheffer, JordanMorrow, Kaylynn
Skogman, Samantha
Hughes, KevinScheffer, JennaNowak, TuckerJohnson, Andrew
Poorker, JustinRewey, Andrew
Fleming, Kassaundra
Becker, AndreaBoecker, JustinHiggins, Christian
Johnson, Olivia
Kuykendall, ThomasMuehlberg, ShannaPaulsen, Thomas
Stone, PhoebeWilliams, Tra'von
RIT score
Estimated that students need RIT score between 243 and 260 to pass GRAD
Windram & Johnson, 2008
So you want to implement RtI at the Secondary Level?
Let kids tell you what to do and how to do it
Start with school-wide literacy
and/or positive behavior support
Start small
More time!
5-8 years for secondary settings
(
Be Prepared to Disrupt the Master Schedule!
Student Involvement and Relationships
Do you have data?
• Screening• Formative
• Summative• Reliable & Valid
Schedule data reviews
What is your decision-making process?
Problem-Solving Process
Is everyone trained?
When do comprehension and vocabulary instruction happen?
“ . . . reading comprehension depends on knowledge and vocabulary. It’s an organic and cumulative process.”
Teaching content?
SIM strategies
Strategic Instruction Model
http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/
Routines to help bring order and
priority to the content
A word about roles for . . .
School PsychologistsLeadership for implementing
RtI framework
A word about roles for . . .
TeachersBelieve we teach ALL kids
A word about roles for . . .
Administrators Leadership in instruction and change
Administrator is a leader for change
Do it. Do with baby steps or not, but do it.
“If, as a school leader, you wait to improve [insert whatever you want here] until you have total buy-in from the school community, then your school will be the last to change.”
How not to do it“Train & Hope”
REACT toProblemBehavior
REACT toProblemBehavior
Select &ADD
Practice
Select &ADD
Practice
Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice
Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice
WAIT forNew
Problem
WAIT forNew
Problem
Expect, But HOPE for
Implementation
Expect, But HOPE for
Implementation
Staff Buy-In• Start with a few motivated, charismatic staff• Make in-person connections (emails do not cut it)• Give educators tools for remedial/basic skill instruction for academics
and PBS• Create time for their involvement, e.g., no bus or hallway duty, schedule
team meetings during prep, etc.• For every 1 new task/initiative added, take 2 away.
and above all . . .
Show them the
Windram & Johnson, 2008
RtI implementation integrity is essential
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Schedule data reviews
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Have a process for decision-making
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Have a building level RtI “expert”
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Clearly defined roles of Problem-Solving Team members
Contact Information
Holly Windram, Asst. Spec. Ed. Director, [email protected] Ertl, Principal, [email protected] Sara Johnson, Asst. Principal, [email protected]