IISD September Principal Academcy PPT

download report

Transcript IISD September Principal Academcy PPT

Elementary and Secondary RtI/MTSS Distinctions and Common Threads Ingham ISD Principal’s Academy September, 2012

Our Path: Past, Present and Future

Where have we been?

• Unpacking the distinctions between “program quality” measures and “outcome data” – Program Quality: “Are we doing what we said we would do” – Outcome Data: “If we are doing what we said we were going to do well, then is it having a positive impact on our student outcome data?” • Focused primarily on behavior program quality measures

Where have we been?

• Reviewed alignment documents for the Building Self Assessment (BSA) and the MiBLSi data your buildings have been collecting • Delved into the bully-prevention legislation (Matt’s Safe School Law) • Begin to look at the reading program quality measures (PET-R and SWEPT)

Where we are heading today…

• RtI to MTSS: Key Distinctions – National perspective – Elementary and secondary MTSS models • Good instruction is good instruction regardless of elementary or secondary MTSS models

Where are we going?

• Continue to deepen knowledge for analyzing the data that is being collected • Focus on increasing/refining implementation so student outcomes continue to increase at appropriate rates • Focus on effective instruction methodologies to improve student outcomes (math, reading, social behavior)

RtI/MTSS Distinctions

RtI and MTSS

• Defining the acronyms: – RtI: Response to Intervention – MTSS: Multi-Tiered System of Supports • Why the shift from RtI to MTSS?

– Perception of RtI being special education focused – Many RtI models addressed only academic supports – MTSS verbiage has been written into draft versions of ESEA

MTSS: A National Perspective

• Emphasizes the following: – Sustainable systems change – Effective leadership at all levels – Using reliable and valid data at all levels of the system – Developing local capacity – Documenting the process and systems work necessary to implement a continuum of supports – Focus on fidelity

Good News!

• MiBLSi has always emphasized the importance of developing systems to support the implementation of evidence based curriculum, instructional practices and assessment • MiBLSi’s emphasis has always been on prevention and developing local capacity • The shift in the MiBLSi model underscores the need to intentionally focus on leadership at all levels of the system in order to ensure durable implementation efforts

Good News!

• MTSS is heavily emphasized in the ESEA Flexibility Waiver • MiBLSi is referenced as a MTSS model that districts can utilize to implement a MTSS model

Elementary vs. Secondary MTSS: Key Distinctions

Acknowledgements

Reed, D. K.; Wexler, J.; Vaughn, S. (2012). RtI for reading at the secondary level: Recommended literacy practices and remaining questions.

Guilford Press, New York.

RtI/MTSS at the Elementary Level • Received a great deal of attention at the national level • Addressed early literacy through federal efforts (e.g. Reading First, NCLB) • Research for evidence based reading instruction dates back 25 years or longer • Efforts to examine the delivery of instruction and provide layers (tiers) of support that increases to individualized instruction have been developed more recently

Purpose of Layered Approaches • Tighten up classroom instruction • Ensure more students were provided evidence based approaches to learning how to read • Designed to use data to screen students early in their educational career (and early in the school year) to identify areas of need and to attach interventions to address the needs • Offered an alternative to qualifying students who were in need of special education services

Thus, the role of RtI as a model to prevent learning difficulties and support students began at the elementary level.

RtI/MTSS at the Secondary Level

• Considerably different than RtI/MTSS at the elementary level • Some indication the people responsible for writing RtI into IDEA “considered whether or how RtI would be implemented at the secondary level” (Reed, Wexler, Vaughn, 2012)

RtI/MTSS at the Secondary Level

• Efforts to apply the elementary model (K-3) to the secondary setting have occurred but leaders who were designing secondary models aligned them with effective elementary RtI practices • RtI/MTSS at the secondary level is very different

Secondary RtI/MTSS Models

• Number of teachers who interact with students – Elementary: 1 or 2 – Secondary: 5 or 6 • Scheduling: – Elementary: mostly controlled by the classroom teachers – Secondary: more inherent challenges with scheduling • Core instruction: – Elementary: primarily one teacher providing core – Secondary: multiple teachers teaching core

Secondary RtI/MTSS Models

• Assessments: – Elementary: use of Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) – Secondary: existing data (state level assessments, core course assessments) are used as the basis of screening data • Focus: – Elementary: prevention – Secondary: remediation

Secondary RtI/MTSS Models

• Other distinctions: – Graduation requirements – Electives • The logistical challenges surrounding secondary schools has been a challenge for designing large experimental studies looking at the effectiveness of secondary RtI/MTSS models

Good news! IISD has brought you the most current research for designing and supporting RtI/MTSS models at the secondary level.

Suggestion

• Possibly a book study to deepen our knowledge using the one (or both) of the following: Reed, D. K.; Wexler, J.; Vaughn, S. (2012). RtI for reading at the secondary level: Recommended literacy practices and remaining questions.

Guilford Press, New York.

Archer, A.; Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction. Corwin Press, New York.

Common Thread: High Quality Instruction

Activity

Independently read each statement on the Anticipatory Guide for “Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction”

Fill in “Agree” or “Disagree” in the Before Reading (left hand) column next to each statement

Read the article, “Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction”

Go back and fill in “Agree” or “Disagree in the After Reading (right hand) column next to each statement

Identify three things that resonated with you in the article. Take turns sharing with your table mates

When Does Instruction Need to be Guided (Explicit)?

Explicit

Very low background knowledge

Implicit

Very high background knowledge Experienced failure in the past Previous success

Guided (explicit) instruction not an either/or. It is a matter of “when” to use it.

Thank You!

Kim St. Martin [email protected]