Transcript Document

Schools, Families, and
Response to Intervention
A module for pre-service and in-service
professional development
MN RTI Center
Module author: Amy Reschly, PhD
www.scred.k12.mn.us click on RTI Center
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
1
MN RTI Center Training Modules


This module was developed with funding from the MN legislature
It is part of a series of modules available from the MN RTI Center
for use in preservice and inservice training:
Module Title
Authors
1. RTI Overview
Kim Gibbons & Lisa Stewart
2. Measurement and RTI Overview
Lisa Stewart
3. Curriculum Based Measurement and RTI
Lisa Stewart
4. Universal Screening (Benchmarking): (Two
parts)
Lisa Stewart
What, Why and How
Using Screening Data
5. Progress Monitoring: (Two parts)
Lisa Stewart & Adam Christ
What, Why and How
Using Progress Monitoring Data
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
6. Evidence-Based Practices
Ann Casey
7. Problem Solving in RTI
Kerry Bollman
8. Differentiated Instruction
Peggy Ballard
9. Tiered Service Delivery and Instruction
Wendy Robinson
10. Leadership and RTI
Jane Thompson & Ann Casey
11. Family involvement and RTI
Amy Reschly
12. Five Areas of Reading
Kerry Bollman
13. Schoolwide Organization
Kim Gibbons
2
Overview

Background

Systems theory: student learning in context

Response to Intervention

Current trends in the family engagement
literature

RTI-Family Engagement Model
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
3
Background Questions

Who is responsible for student learning?


When a student isn’t doing well at school, to what do
we attribute this?


What does No Child Left Behind imply about responsibility?
Differences in how families and schools would answer this
question?
What supports student learning at home? At school?

Are there differences in how families and schools would
answer this question?
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
4
Ecological Systems Theory
ChronoSystem
across time
MN RtI Center

Child
DRAFT May 27 2009
Bronfenbrenner
5
Three-Legged Stool:
Students, Families, and Schools
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
6
Ecological Systems Theory:
Families and Schools

Many studies and policies (re. families and schools)
were developed without a theoretical framework


Needed to advance research and guide practice

Jordan et al., 2001
Systems Theory



Provides the theoretical foundation for working across families
and schools to promote student success
Focus on understanding child development (learning and
behavior) in context
Reciprocal interactions and relationships among these contexts
(families and schools) over time
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
Reschly & Christenson, 2009
7
Learning Context

An interwoven structure of circumstances and people
that surround the child across systems at a given
point in time and over time.

Consider the “affordance value” of this context—or
how the learning context facilitates or impedes child
adaptation to challenges and demands of schooling.

Question should be…

How does the social context support or thwart the development
of student competence (behavior, academics, socially) for
students across settings and time?
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
Christenson & Anderson, 2002
8
Ecological Systems theory applied to
understanding student achievement ==
Learning Environment
Instructional
Support
The Total Learning
Environment For An
Individual
Student
Home Support
Academic
Behavior
Home-School
Support
Ysseldyke & Christenson
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009
9
Implications

We cannot understand student competence or
difficulties as a function of home or school – must
consider the entire system (children, family, school,
community, peers)

Schools and homes are the primary socializing and
learning contexts for students. Relationships between
families and school personnel are important for
promoting competence -> Mesosystem
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
10
Implications (Cont’d)

Risk is not located within student, home, or
school systems, but distributed across systems
and represented in interactions.

Pianta & Walsh, 1996

High risk: lack of congruence, poor relationships
between home and school

Low risk: family and school systems are wellfunctioning, positive relationships promote
congruence and shared responsibility
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
11
Assessment & Intervention Questions

What are typical assessment practices?

Where are interventions implemented?

What does our understanding of ecological
systems theory mean for assessment?
What about intervention?
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
12
Response to Intervention

Calls for reform over many years to address…

Within child conceptualizations of educational difficulties

Too little time for prevention and early intervention

More rhetoric than action in creating meaningful opportunities for
parent engagement

Assessment conducted for the purpose of eligibility determination
rather than intervention

Reliance on special education placement as a means of addressing
student difficulties
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
Reschly, Chaffin, Christenson, & Gutkin, 2007
13
Promise of RTI

May address many of these criticisms




Focus on all students
Contexts essential to success – implications for assessment
and intervention
Families are necessary, not optional
Changes inherent in RTI creating an opportunity to
meaningfully engage families




Prevention, screening, and early intervention
Frequent systematic data collection
Focus on Problem-Solving
Change from where to teach to how, what and is it working?
to produce optimal student learning
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
Reschly et al., 2007
14
Working with Families

The evidence is consistent, positive, and
convincing: families have a major influence
on their children’s achievement in school
and through

Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7)
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
15
Out of School Time

From birth to the age of 18, students spend more
than 90% of their time outside of schools.


Walberg
Efforts to improve student achievement, and close the
achievement gap among various groups of students
(e.g., those in poverty, racial/ethnic groups, English
learners), must take into account the power of out-ofschool time.

Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
16
Families

Families have an enormous impact on
student outcomes… but what they do is
more important than who they are

Family process variables account for a much
greater portion of the variance in achievement
(60%) than those related to status (25%)

Kellaghan et al., 1993
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
17
Mesosystem: Families & Schools

When schools, families, and community
groups work together to support learning,
children tend to do better in school, stay in
school longer, and like school more.


Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7)
There has been a gradual deconstruction of
the notion that families and schools have
separate responsibilities for student learning.

Reschly & Christenson, 2009
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
18
Mesosystem: Congruence

The processes and characteristics that enhance
academic achievement are essentially the same whether found in the home or in the school”


Chall
Home predictors of school learning—work habits of
the home, academic guidance and support,
stimulation to explore and discuss ideas and events,
language environment, and academic aspirations and
expectations—are comparable to school factors that
enhance achievement

Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
19
Common Factors Across Home-SchoolCommunity Related to Student Competence

Shared Standards and Expectations


Consistent Structure


The level of expected performance held by key adults for the
student is congruent across home and school, and reflects a belief
that the student can learn.
The overall routine and monitoring provided by key adults for the
student have been discussed and are congruent across home and
school.
Cross-setting Opportunity to Learn

The variety of learning options available to the youth during school
hours and outside of school time (i.e., home and community)
supports the student’s learning.
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
(Cont’d on next slide)
Christenson & Peterson, 2006;
Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002 20
Common Factors Across Home-School-Community
Related to Student Competence (Cont’d)

Mutual Support


Positive, Trusting Relationships


The guidance provided by, the communication between, and the
interest shown by adults to facilitate student progress in school is
effective. It is what adults do on an ongoing basis to help the
student learn and achieve.
The amount of warmth and friendliness; praise and recognition; and
the degree to which the adult-youth relationship is positive and
respectful. It includes how adults in the home, in the school, and in
the community work together to help the student be a learner.
Modeling

Parents and teachers demonstrate desired behaviors and
commitment and value toward learning and working hard in their
daily lives to the student.
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
Christenson & Peterson, 2006;
Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002
21
Family Involvement:
A Universally Endorsed Ideal

Initiatives, position statements from national
organizations (e.g., PTA, NASP), and
legislation (e.g., NCLB, IDEA) related to
family involvement


Not only ensuring family rights but a universal goal
of encouraging family engagement and
involvement in education
Not there yet…. Vision of partnerships
among educators and families not reached
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
22
Status of Family Engagement Field
Shifting away from…
Currently…
Why work with families?
How? What works?
Parent involvement
Family Involvement/Engagement
School-defined involvement
Varied definitions of involvement and support for
learning at school and in the home
•Different types of involvement = different outcomes
Activity lists
Any number of activities may accomplish a specific
goal or outcome (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006).
•Attention to ‘fit’
Evidence-based interventions
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009
Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009
23
Families, Schools and RTI:
Evidence-Based Interventions

NCLB, IDEA, Task Forces within APA Divisions


What works, for whom, and under what conditions?
Various recent literature reviews and metaanalyses examining family and family-school
interventions

E.g., Division 16 Task Force (Carlson & Christenson,
2005); Nye, Turner, & Schwartz, 2007; Henderson &
Mapp, 2002.
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
24
Carlson & Christenson, 2005

Areas reviewed: parent training and therapy, consultation, involvement,
and family focused early childhood interventions

Moderate to large effect sizes across areas

Most effective interventions were those with a systems
orientation:

Collaboration interventions w/ two-way communication, monitoring
and dialogue

Focused parent education programs (specific behavior or learning
outcomes)

Parent involvement programs with parents as tutors in specific
subjects

Parent consultation
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
25
Meta-Analysis Example: Nye et al., 2007

Effects of parent involvement programs on academic performance
of elementary students

Overall positive, significant effects

Most studies in area of reading – stable, moderate effect sizes

Significant moderate effect sizes in math, more variable

Moderator analyses

Large effects for intervention programs in which parents
provided some reward or incentive for student performance,
followed by those with parent education/training components
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
26
Caveats

Much more research needed


Effective practices vary across sites


Directions and issues outlined in Carlson & Christenson, 2005;
Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Ginsburg-Block, Manz, & McWayne,
in press; Jordan et al., 2001; Sheridan, 2005, among others.
Depending on the unique needs of families, students, and
schools and the resources available to families, schools, and
communities
Particular programs or strategies may have different
effects at different ages

Jordan et al., 2001
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009
27
Family-School Co-Roles & Partnerships in RTI
Figure 1. Family-School Co-Roles and Partnerships in RtI
CoDecision-makers
Tier 3
Coteachers
Collaborative problem-solving
Tier 2
Colearners
Collaborative problem-solving
Cosupporters
Cocommunicators
Moles (1993) Co-Roles
Tier 1
Setting conditions for working with families:
Approach, Atmosphere, Attitudes*
*Christenson & Sheridan, 2001
MN RtI Center
ReschlyDRAFT
(2008b),May
RTI27
Action
2009Network
28
References
•
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
•
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.),
Annals of child development: Six theories of child development: Revised
formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley.
•
Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works
in the classroom? New York: Guilford Press.
•
Christenson, S.L., & Anderson, A.R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of
the learning context for students' academic enabler skills. School
Psychology Review, 31(3), 378-393.
•
Christenson, S. L., & Carlson, C. (2005). Evidence-based parent and family
interventions in school psychology: State of scientifically based practice.
School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 525-528. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan,
S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential connections for
learning. NY: Guilford Press.
•
Christenson, S. L., & Peterson, C. J. (2006). Family, school, and community
influences on children’s learning: A literature review. All Parents Are
MN RtI Center
Teachers
Project. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension
Service. www.parenting.umn.edu
DRAFT May 27 2009
29
References (Cont’d)
•
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating
essential connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press.
•
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research
on school, family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin
(Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and
enriching inquiry (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
•
Ginsburg-Block, M., Manz, P. H., & McWayne, C. (in press). Partnering to
foster achievement in reading and mathematics. In S.L. Christenson and
A.L. Reschly (Eds). Handbook of School Family Partnerships. New York:
Routledge.
•
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The
impact of school,family, and community connections on student
achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
•
Jordan, C., Orzco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school,
family, and community connections. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
•
Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B. S. (1993). The home
environment and school learning: Promoting parental involvement in the
education of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009
30
References (Cont’d)
•
Moles, O. (1993). Building school-family partnerships for learning:
Workshops for urban educators. Washington, DC: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education.
•
Nye, C., Turner, H., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Approaches to parent
involvement for improving the academic performance of elementary school
age children. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/frontend2.asp?ID=9
•
Pianta, R., & Walsh, D. B. (1996). High-risk children in schools:
Constructing sustaining relationships. NY: Routledge.
•
Reschly, A.L. (2008a). Ecological approaches to working with families.
Symposium with Gutkin, T.B., Doll, B.J., Reschly, A.L., Stoiber, K.C., Hintze,
J.M., & Conoley, J.C. (2008, August). Ecological Approaches to School
Psychological Services: Putting Theory Into Action. Held at the 2008 annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association. Boston, MA.
•
Reschly, A.L. (2008b). Schools, families and response to intervention.
Invited piece for the RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning
Disabilities. Available on-line at:
http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/Family/ar/Schools-Familes-andResponse-to-Intervention
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009
31
References (Cont’d)
•
Reschly, A., Coolong, M. A., Christenson, S. L., & Gutkin, T. B. (2007). Contextual
influences and RTI: Critical issues and strategies. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns ,&
A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science
and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer
•
Reschly, A. L, & Christenson, S. L. (2009). Parents as essential partners for fostering
students’ learning outcomes. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. Furlong (Eds). A
handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 257-272). New York: Routledge.
•
Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on evidence-based parent and family
interventions: Will what we know now influence what we do in the future? School
Psychology Quarterly, 20, 518-524.
•
Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta
Kappan, 65, 397-400.
•
Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., & Bouffard, S. (2005). Participation in youth programs:
Enrollment, attendance, and engagement. [Special Issue] New Directions for Youth
Development, 105.
•
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (2002). FAAB: Functional Assessment of
Academic Behavior. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009
32
Resources

All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Extension Service. www.parenting.umn.edu

RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning Disabilities.
www.rtinetwork.org

Harvard Family Research Project
http://www.hfrp.org/

Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, Dr. Susan Sheridan,
University of Nebraska.
http://cehs.unl.edu/edpsych/graduate/spCbc.shtml
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
33
Quiz

1.) Systems theory does what?





A.) Provides a theoretical foundation for working across
families and schools
B.) Focuses on understanding child development
C.) Studies learning and behavior in context
D.) Looks at reciprocal interactions and relationships among
families and schools over time
E.) All of the above
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
34
Quiz (Cont’d)

2.) A promise of Response to Intervention is
that families are ________not _________.

3.) Name three out of the six common
factors across home-school-community
related to student competence.
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
35
Quiz (Cont’d)

4.) Caveats of RTI: True or False



1- Much more research is needed
2- Effective practices do not vary by site
3- Particular programs/strategies may have
the same effects at different ages
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
36
The End 

Note: The MN RTI Center does not endorse any particular
product. Examples used are for instructional purposes only.

Special Thanks:


Thank you to Dr. Ann Casey, director of the MN RTI Center, for
her leadership
Thank you to Aimee Hochstein, Kristen Bouwman, and Nathan
Rowe, Minnesota State University Moorhead graduate
students, for editing work, writing quizzes, and enhancing the
quality of these training materials
MN27
RtI2009
Center
DRAFT May
37