Transcript Problem-Solving/RtI: Implementing an Intervention Data

Problem-Solving/RtI: Implementing an
Intervention Data Collection System with
Integrity
NASP Annual Convention
New Orleans, LA
George M. Batsche
Professor and Co-Director
Institute for School Reform
Florida Problem-Solving RtI Statewide Project
Jose’ M. Castillo
PS/RtI Project Evaluator
RtI Coach - Pasco County School District
University of South Florida
The Vision
• 95% of students at “proficient” level
• Students possess social and emotional behaviors that support
“active” learning
• A “unified” system of educational services
– One “ED”
• Student Support Services perceived as a necessary component
for successful schooling
Components of the
Organizational Delivery System
• Academic and Behavior Instruction
• Learning Supports
• Leadership
Response to Intervention
• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality
instruction/intervention matched to student
needs and (2) using learning rate over time
and level of performance to (3) make
important educational decisions.
(Batsche, et al., 2005)
• Problem-solving is the process that is used to
develop effective instruction/interventions.
Stages of Implementing
Problem-Solving/RtI
•
Consensus
– Belief is shared
– Vision is agreed upon
– Implementation requirements understood
•
Infrastructure Development
–
–
–
–
–
Problem-Solving Process
Data System
Policies/Procedures
Training
Tier I and II intervention systems
• E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan
– Technology support
– Decision-making criteria established
•
Implementation
The Process of Systems Change
•
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.
Consensus Development:
Methods
• Knowledge
• Data
Consensus Development:
Knowledge
• Rationale for PS/RtI
– Impact on students
– Reduces disproportionality
– Equity in Educaiton
• Research
– NASDSE Book
• Law and Regulations
Building Consensus
• Beliefs
• Understanding the
“Need”
• Skills and/or
Support
Essential Beliefs
•
•
•
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.
How Do We Know If This is a
General Education Initiative?
• Priority of superintendent and school
board
– District Leadership Team
– Strategic Plan
• Focus is on effectiveness of Tier 1 for
disaggregated groups
– Unit of Analysis is the BUILDING
How Do We Know If This is a
General Education Initiative?
• Principal Led
– Regular data analysis
– Data Days
– Team focuses in improving impact of core
instruction
• Prevention and Early Intervention
– Screening and early intervention with
Kindergarten students
Contextual Issues Affecting The ProblemSolving Process in General and
Special Education
•
IDEA Re-Authorization
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
Focus on academic outcomes
General education as baseline metric
Labeling as a “last resort”
Increasing general education options
Pooling building-based resources
Flexible funding patterns
RtI Introduced as option for LD eligibility
ESEA Legislation-No Child Left Behind
National Emphasis on Reading
Evidence-based Interventions
Is It All About Reading?
Maybe At First!
• 52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs
• 70% +/- of special education “activities” (e.g.,
evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases
• 94% of students in LD because of reading/language
arts
• 46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading
• Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast majority of
special education “activities”
Why Problem-Solving ?
BIG IDEAS
•
•
•
•
•
AYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of attention to
student progress, not student labels
Building principals and superintendents want to know if students are
achieving benchmarks, regardless of the students “type”
Accurate “placements” do not guarantee that students will be exposed
to interventions that maximize their rate of progress
Effective interventions result from good problem-solving, rather than
good “testing”
Progress monitoring is done best with “authentic” assessment that is
sensitive to small changes in student academic and social behavior
Big Ideas (con’d)
• Interventions must be “evidence based” (IDEA/NCLB)
• Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure of
problem “severity”
• Program eligibility (initial and continued) decisions
are best made based on RtI
• Staff training and support (e.g., coaching) improve
intervention skills
• “Tiered” implementation improves service efficiency
New Regulations: LD
•
•
•
•
•
The child does not achieve adequately for the
child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards
in one or more of the following areas, when provided with
learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the
child’s age or State-approved grade–level standards:
•
•
•
•
•
The child does not make sufficient progress to
meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or
more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section when using a process based on the child’s response
to scientific, research-based intervention;
New Regulations: LD
•
Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral
process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in
regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel;
and
•
(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal
assessment of student progress during instruction, which was
provided to the child’s parents.
New Regulations: LD
•
•
•
•
•
If the child has participated in a process that
assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based
intervention-–
(i) The instructional strategies used and the
student-centered data collected; and
•
•
•
•
•
•
(ii) The documentation that the child’s parents were
notified about-(A) The State’s policies regarding the amount and
nature of student performance data that would be collected
and the general education services that would be provided;
(B) Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of Learning AND the relationship
between student behavior and academic performance.
What Does the USDOE Say?
• “The Department does not believe that an
assessment of psychological or cognitive processing
should be required in determining whether a child has
an SLD. There is no current evidence that such
assessments are necessary or sufficient for
identifying SLD. Further, in many cases, these
assessments have not been used to make
appropriate intervention decisions.” (IDEIA, 2004, p.
46651)
Criteria for Special
Education Eligibility
• Significant gap exists between student
and benchmark/peer performance
• The Response to Intervention is
insufficient to predict attaining
benchmark
• Student is not a functionally
independent learner
• Complete comprehensive evaluation
Implications
• Tier 1 Decision Making
– Ensure that the “core curriculum” is
effective
– What does “effective” mean?
• 80% of students achieving benchmarks
• Disaggregated data
– Race, SES, LEP
– Who determines “effective?”
• Principal, Teacher, Data “Person”
Implications
• Poor/lack of instruction must be ruled out
• Curricular access blocked by any of the following
must be addressed
– Attendance
– Health
– Mobility
• Sufficient exposure to and focus on the curriculum
must occur
• Frequent, repeated assessment must be conducted
Consensus Development:
Data
• Are you happy with your data?
• Building/Grade Level Student Outcomes
– Disaggregated
– AYP
TIER O NE DATA ANALYSIS
S ch ool A (K-5) 2006-07
Student population (size) at site
608
P ercent of students on free/reduced lunch
56%
P ercent of students who are ELL
38%
P ercent of students served in Special Education
10%
P ercent of students identified as having a Specific Learning Disability
3.8%
P er pupil funding
$8,100
P ercentage of students per grade proficient on school screening measure
K Ğ 88%
1 Ğ 71%
2 Ğ 66%
3 Ğ 91%1
4 Ğ 81%
Reading First School
5 Ğ 85%
N
Title I school
1
School indicated that 3rd grade scores are high because they were the first grade
t o receive targeted interventions since K.
Y
TIER O NE DATA ANALYSIS
S ch ool E (Grade s 6-8 mi ddle sch ool) 2005-06
Student population (size) at site
870
P ercent of students on free/reduced lunch
50
P ercent of students who are ELL
22
P ercent of students served in Special Education
11
P ercent of students identified as having a Specific Learning Disability
3
P er pupil funding
$5,277.30
P ercentage of students per grade proficient on state measure (CST
English/Language Arts)2
6th 50%
7th 57%
Is this a Reading First School?
8th 50%
N
Is this a Title I school?
Y
2
The percentage of students who were below or far below basic was 16% for 6th grade,
17% for 7th grade, and 16% for 7th grade.
Infrastructure:
Critical Issues
• Policies and Procedures
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
The Model
Steps in the Model
Decision Rules
Decision Rules and Impact on Intervention
Development
Expectation for Tier Functions/Integration
Data Collection and Interpretation
Intervention Development
Intervention Integrity and Documentation
Infrastructure:
Policies and Procedures
• Clearly delineate the components of the
model
– Triangle
– 4-Step Model
• Identify steps/skills required for each
component
• Decision Rules
Problem Solving Process
Define the Problem
Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior
Evaluate
Problem Analysis
Response to
Intervention (RtI)
Validating Problem
Ident Variables that
Contribute to Problem
Develop Plan
Implement Plan
Implement As Intended
Progress Monitor
Modify as Necessary
1.
2.
3.
4.
Steps in the Problem-Solving
Process
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• Identify replacement behavior
• Data- current level of performance
• Data- benchmark level(s)
• Data- peer performance
• Data- GAP analysis
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
• Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)
• Develop predictions/assessment
INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT
• Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available
and hypotheses verified
• Proximal/Distal
• Implementation support
Response to Intervention (RtI)
• Frequently collected data
• Type of Response- good, questionable, poor
Problem-Solving/RtI
Resource Management
• Public Education
Resource
Deployment
– Support staff cannot
resource more than
20% of the students
– Service vs
Effectiveness--BIG
ISSUE
Academic
Behavior
1-5%
5-10%
1-5%
5-10%
Students
80-90%
80-90%
Intervention Framework
• Intensive Interventions
Academic
– A few
• Supplemental Interventions
– Some
• Core/Universal Interventions
– All
Behavior
1-5%
5-10%
1-5%
5-10%
Students
80-90%
80-90%
How Does it Fit Together?
Standard Treatment Protocol
Step 2
Step 1
All Students at
a grade level
Intensive
Supplemental
Behavior
Academics
ODRs
Monthly
Bx
Screening
BenchMark
Assessment
Step 3
Addl.
Diagnostic
Assessment
Instruction
Individual
Diagnostic
Individualized
Intensive
Results
Monitoring
1-5%
5-10%
Standard
Protocol
Small
Group
Differentiated
By Skill
weekly
2 times/month
Core
Annual
Testing
Step 4
80-90%
None
Continue
With
Core
Instruction
Grades
Classroom
Assessments
Yearly Assessments
Tier Functions/Integration
• How the Tiers work
• Time aggregation
• Tier integration
How the Tiers Work
• Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of supportacademic or behavioral
• Greater the tier, greater support and “severity”
• Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an
intervention that results in a positive response to intervention
• Continue until student strengthens response significantly
• Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level)
• Determine the relationship between sustained growth and
sustained support.
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 (e.g., phonemic
awareness, phonics, some fluency)
– Tier 2
• Fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, pre-teach for Tier 1
– Tier 1
• Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted decoding
• Use core materials for content
• Progress monitor both instructional level and grade
placement level skills
Cascade of Interventions
• Entire staff understands “triangle” and the available
interventions at each Tier.
• Supplemental and intensive interventions are in
addition to core instruction.
• A student intervention plan is a single document that
is integrated across the tiers.
• Different tiers ensure that outcomes in Tier 1 are
improved
• Tier 1 progress monitoring data are used for
effectiveness determination for all Tiers
Three Tiered Model of School Supports:
Anclote Elementary-Pasco County
Behavioral Systems
Academic Systems
Tier 3: Comprehensive and Intensive
Interventions
Individual Students or Small Group (2-3)
Reading: Scholastic Program,
1-5%
Tier 3: Intensive Interventions
Individual Counseling
FBA/BIP
Teach, Reinforce, and Prevent (TRP)
Assessment-based
Intense, durable procedures
1-5%
Reading,Mastery, ALL, Soar to Success, Leap
Track, Fundations
Tier 2: Strategic Interventions
Students that don’t respond to the core
curriculum
Reading: Soar to Success, Leap Frog,
CRISS strategies, CCC Lab Math:
Extended Day
Writing: Small Group, CRISS strategies,
and “Just Write Narrative” by K.
Robinson
Tier 1: Core Curriculum
All students
Reading: Houghton Mifflin
Math: Harcourt
Writing: Six Traits Of Writing
Learning Focus Strategies
Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions
Some students (at-risk)
Small Group Counseling
Parent Training (Behavior & Academic)
Bullying Prevention Program
FBA/BIP Classroom Management
Techniques, Professional Development
Small Group Parent Training ,Data
5-10%
5-10%
Students
80-90%
80-90%
Tier 1: Universal Interventions
All settings, all students
Committee, Preventive, proactive
strategies
School Wide Rules/ Expectations
Positive Reinforcement System
(Tickets & 200 Club)
School Wide Consequence
System School Wide Social Skills
Program, Data (Discipline,
Surveys, etc.) Professional
Development (behavior)
Classroom Management
Techniques,Parent Training
Decision Rules
• Response to Intervention Rules
• Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions
Decision Rules: What is a “Good”
Response to Intervention?
• Positive Response
– Gap is closing
– Can extrapolate point at which target student will
“come in range” of peers--even if this is long range
• Questionable Response
– Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but
gap is still widening
– Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
• Poor Response
– Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.
Decision Rules: Linking RtI to
Intervention Decisions
•
•
Positive, Questionable, Poor Response
Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)
– Positive
• Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at
least).
• Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional
independence.
– Questionable
• Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of
time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does
not improve, return to problem solving.
– Poor
• Return to problem solving for new intervention
Data Collection and Interpretation:
Issues and Models
•
•
•
•
Where to data come from
Which data are used across tiers
High school applications
Data analysis and display
Data Coach
• 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
Skills Required
• Collaborative problem solving
– Interpersonal
– Problem solving process
• Data-based decision making
–
–
–
–
Collection
Management
Display & analysis
Interpretation
• Action planning
– Assessment & intervention
– Support
Skill Assessment Examples
• Measure skills
– Problem-solving process
– Data-based decision making
• Examples
– Problem ID - Tier I focus
– Hypothesis evaluation
– Hypothesis production & validation
Real Elementary: Direct Skills Assessment
3
2.5
2.97
1.88
2
Score
1.64
1.54
1.5
1.38
1.38
Possible points
1
0.5
0
Core effectiveness Improvements to
core
Response to
supplemental
instruction
T ier 3 referral
Questions
Literacy Failure T ier effectiveness
Real Elementary School
Tier I Problem Identification Skill Worksheets
100%
90%
86%
83%
Percentage of Total Possible Points
80%
70%
60%
n=9
Example:
Dorito Elementary has 10
members who return the skill
worksheets from Days 1 &
2. Each worksheet is worth
13 points.The total points
awarded to the team
members when added
together is 100. The total
number of possible points is
130 (13 possible points x 10
team members). Therefore
the following formula was
used: 100/130 = .76 (76%)
n=10
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Day s 1 & 2
To calculate the percentage
of possible points the team
attained, the points awarded
for responses on skill
worksheets completed by
each team member were
added together. This score
was then divided by the total
number of possible points on
the skills worksheets
completed by the team.
Day 3
Real Elementary
Hypothesis Evaluation
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Tier I Hypothesis
Tier I Data Collection
Tier III Hypothesis
Tier III Data
Collection
Real
Elementary
3
Mean Score
2
Tier I
Tier III
1
0
Instruction
Curriculum
Env ironment
Domain
Learner
Data For Each Tier - Where
Do They Come From?
•
Tier 1: Universal Screening, accountability assessments, grades,
classroom assessments, referral patterns, discipline referrals, common
assessments
•
Tier 2: Universal Screening - Group Level Diagnostics (maybe),
systematic progress monitoring, large-scale assessment data and
classroom assessment, common assessments
•
Tier 3: Universal Screenings, Individual Diagnostics, intensive and
systematic progress monitoring, formative assessment, other informal
assessments
High School Data
• Skill or Content Assessment
• Skill
– Use existing reading/math skill
assessments
• Content
– Use “Common Assessments
Common Assessments
• Based on State-Approved, Content Area
Standards
• Syllabus expected to reflect those
standards
• Common assessment given every 3rd
week
• Data aggregated and disaggregated
Common Assessments:
Interpretation
• Mean level of performance of all students
– Disaggregated by section
– Disaggregated by demographics
– Are 80% of students attaining 70% accuracy? If
not, implications for core instruction--Problem
Solving
– Is syllabus implementation on track?
• Compare individual student performance to
group data.
Intervention Development
• Tiers 1 and 2
• Critical Components
• Evidence-based
Data Infrastructure: Using Existing
Data to Predict Intervention Needs
• Previous referral history predicts future referral
history
• How do we interpret teacher referrals?
• Previous intervention history predicts future
intervention history
• How do we use this information to establish an
infrastructure for change?
Data-Driven Infrastructure:
Establishing a Building Baseline
• Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years
– Identifies problems teachers feel they do not have the
skills/support to handle
– Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the staff, the
resources currently in place and the “history” of what
constitutes a referral in that building
– Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years
– Identifies focus of Professional Development Activities AND
potential Tier II and III interventions
– Present data to staff. Reinforces “Need” concept
Data-Driven Infrastructure:
Establishing a Building Baseline
• Assess current “Supplemental Interventions”
– Identify all students receiving supplemental
interventions
– For those interventions, identify
• Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction, etc)
• Duration (minutes/week)
• Provider
– Aggregate
• Identifies instructional support types in building
• This constitutes Tier II and III intervention needs
Implications for High Schools
• Focus is on BOTH skill and content.
• Primary problems:
– Students who cannot read well enough to get the content.
– Students who do not have the skills to study and maintain
content OR do not have sufficient time and organizational
skills.
• High school difficulties should be identified and
predicted in middle school.
• High school interventions should be a continuation of
middle school interventions--not separate.
Data Cannot Be a Barrier
• Data should be:
– Collected efficiently
– Easy to manage
– Displayed graphically
– Easily interpretable
Benchmark Data Made Easy
Nonsense Word
F luency
34
32
30
28
Letter-Sounds Per Minute
26
25
24
22
20
20
18
15
16
14
13
12
12
10
8
5
6
4
2
0
Spring
Winter
Fall
Student
Benc hmark
P eers
OPM Made Easy
Phonemes Per Minute
Phoneme Segmentation
F luency
Progressing Monitoring Data
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
18
12
1
17
13
14
14
4
5
11
2
3
Student
Benc hmark
6
P eers
7
8
L inear (Student)
9
10
H
H
www.swis.org
www.swis.org
Intervention Development
• Criteria for “Appropriate” and “Effective” Interventions:
– Evidence-based
•
•
•
•
Type of Problem
Population
Setting
Levels of Support
• Focused on most important needs
• Group interventions have priority
• Interventions MUST be linked to Tier 1 focus, materials,
performance criteria
Interventions: Tier 2
• First resource is TIME (AET)
– HOW much more time is needed?
• Second resource is curriculum
– WHAT does the student need?
• Third resource is personnel
– WHO or WHERE will it be provided?
Tier 2: Getting TIME
• “Free” time--does not require additional personnel
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Staggering instruction
Differentiating instruction
Cross grade instruction
Skill-based instruction
Standard Protocol Grouping
Reduced range of “standard” curriculum
After-School
Home-Based
Tier 2: Curriculum
• Standard protocol approach
• Focus on essential skills
• Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of
core instruction
• Linked directly to core instruction materials and
benchmarks
• Criterion for effectiveness is 70% of students
receiving Tier 2 will reach benchmarks
Tier 2: Personnel
•
•
•
•
•
EVERYONE in the building is a potential resource
Re-conceptualize who does what
Personnel deployed AFTER needs are identified
WHERE matters less and less
REMEMBER, student performance matters more than labels,
locations and staff needs.
• A school cannot deliver intensive services to more than 7% of
the population
Evidence-Based
• Nationally Evidenced
– Select to increase probability of success
• Locally Validated
– Local outcome data used to evaluate degree to
which interventions “worked”
– Local outcome data trumps national “evidence.”
Intervention Support and
Documentation
• Intervention Integrity
• Intervention Support
• Intervention Documentation
Intervention Integrity
• Enhanced through two practices
– Intervention Support System
– Intervention lmplementation
Documentation
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
Critical Components of
Intervention Support
• 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
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
• 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
Program Evaluation
Evaluation of PS/RtI
Implementation Should
• Respect the complexity of schools as
social systems
• Be organized and systematic
• Be used to inform implementers
– Formative data collection necessary
• Include multiple methods and
informants
FL PS/RtI Evaluation Model
• IPO model used
• Variables included
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Levels
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Contextual factors
External factors
Goals & objectives
Levels
• Students
– Receiving Tiers I, II, & III
• Educators
–
–
–
–
Teachers
Administrators
Coaches
Student and instructional support personnel
• System
–
–
–
–
District
Building
Grade levels
Classrooms
Inputs (What We Don’t Control)
• Students
– Demographics
– Previous learning experiences & achievement
• Educators
–
–
–
–
Roles
Experience
Previous PS/RtI training
Previous beliefs about services
• System
– Previous consensus regarding PS/RtI
– Previous PS/RtI infrastructure
•
•
•
•
Assessments
Interventions
Procedures
Technology
Processes (What We Do)
• Students
– Assessment participation (e.g., DIBELS screening)
– Instruction/intervention participation
• Educators
– Frequency and duration of participation in PS/RtI Project training
– Content of Project training in which they participated
• System
– Frequency & duration of professional development offered by the
Project
– Content of professional development offered
– Stakeholders participating in professional development activities
– Communication between Project and districts/buildings
Implementation Integrity
Checklists
• Implementation integrity measures developed
• Measure
– Steps of problem solving
– Focus on Tiers I, II, & III
• Data come from:
– Permanent products (e.g., meeting notes, reports)
– Problem Solving Team meetings
Outcomes (What We Hope to
Impact)
• Educators
– Consensus regarding PS/RtI
• Beliefs
• Satisfaction
– PS/RtI Skills
– PS/RtI Practices
Beliefs 01/11/08
Real Ele m entary School
5
4.5
4
Mean Score
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
7a
7b
8a
8b
11a
11b
12
13
Item
14
15
16
17
20
22
23
Perceptions of Practices
01/11/08
5
4.5
4
Mean Score
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
8a
Item
8b
14a
14b
16a
16b
18a
18b
Outcomes cont.
• System
– PS/RtI Infrastructure
•
•
•
•
•
Assessments
Interventions
Procedures
Technology
Costs
– PS/RtI Implementation
Real Ele m entary School
Self-Assessm e nt of Problem Solving Im plem entation (SAPSI)
Consensus
3
Status
2
1
0
District Commitment
1
SBLT support
2
Faculty involvement
3
Item
SBLT present
4
Data to assess
commitment
5
6
7
CBM data used to ID students needing
interventions
ODR data used to ID students needing beh
interventions
Data used to evaluate Tier 2 interventions
Data used to determine Tier 3 RtI
Sp Ed eligibility uses RtI for EBD
Sp Ed eligibility uses RtI for SLD
Evidence-based practices for Tier 1
Evidence-based practices for Tier 2
Evidence-based practices for Tier 3
SBLT has regular meeting schedule
SBLT evaluates target students' RtI
SBLT involves parents
9
10
11
12
13
14
15a
15b
16a
16b
16c
17
18
19
Item
SBLT regularly evaluates Tier 1 and 2 data
Data used to evaluate core beh programs
8
Data used to evaluate core acad programs
Data presented to staff
Data used to make decisions
0
Data is collected
Status
Real Ele m entary School
Self-Assessm e nt of Problem Solving Im plem entation (SAPSI)
Infrastructure Developm ent
4
3
2
1
20
0
21a
21b
21c
21d
21e
21f
22a
22b
22c
22d
22e
Item
22f
22g
22h
22i
23
SBLT meets at
least 2x per year
SBLT meets with
District Team 2x
per year
Plan changed
based on data
Feedback of
PS/RtI project
provided to
Monitoring plan
exists
Clearly defined
Tier 1 acad
instruction
Clearly defined
Tier 1 Beh
Instruction
Clearly defined
Tier 2 acad supp
instruction
Clearly defined
Tier 2 Beh Supp
Instruction
Evidence-based
Tier 3 Acad
Strategies
Evidence-based
Tier 3 Beh
Strategies
Define problem
as data-based
discrepancy
SBLT defines
replacement beh
SBLT conducts
problem analysis
with data
Evidence-based
strategies for
interventions
Support identified
for interventions
Intervention
integrity is
documented
RtI evlauated
through data
collection
Intervention
changed based
on student RtI
Parents involved
in interventions
Status
Real Ele m entary School
Self-Assessm e nt of Problem Solving Im plem entation (SAPSI)
Im ple m entation
3
2
1
24
25
26
27
Outcomes cont.
• Students
– Academic achievement
– Behavioral outcomes
• Systemic
–
–
–
–
Discipline referrals
Referrals for problem solving
Referrals for SPED evaluations
SPED placements
Reading Instruction - Tier I
Grade Level
Anclote NWF-4
Anclote NWF-3
High Risk
9%
High Risk
20%
M oderate
Risk
21%
M oderate
Risk
21%
Low Risk
59%
Low Risk
70%
Systemic Outcomes - Office
Discipline Referrals
2005-2006
2006-2007
60
54
50
38
30
30
31
30
30
24
20
10
17
10
8
16
26
26
18
16
6
Month
May
April
March
February
January
December
November
October
September
0
August
Number of ODRs
40
Other Variables to Keep in Mind
• Contextual factors
– Leadership
– School climate
– Stakeholder buy-in
• External factors
– Legislation
– Regulations
– Policy
School Goals & Objectives
• Content Area Targets
– Reading
– Math
– Behavior
• Majority focusing on reading
• Some selected math and/or behavior as well
• Grade levels targeted varied
– Some chose K or K-1
– Some chose K-5