Transcript Document

Implementing Response to
Intervention Systemically
If we do the right things,
all kids can learn.
2009 ASCD Convention
Orange County Convention Center, Room W309A
Orlando, FL
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Introductions
 Dr. Robert (Bob) Howell, Executive Director,
Special Education, RTI Administrator (Retired)
 Sandy Patton, Executive Director, Learning
Resources and Project Director, RTI (Retired)
 Dr. John Kerr, Deputy Superintendent.
Curriculum and Instruction, Colorado Springs
School District 11 (Retired)
 Marcia Kaplan, Curriculum, Instruction and
Technology Consultant
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
2
Take Home Points
Developing an RTI implementation plan
Identifying leadership responsibilities
Acquiring implementation strategies
Understanding the critical role of the Problem
Solving Team (PST)
 Delineating root causes
 Choosing appropriate interventions
 Using progress monitoring and curriculumbased measurements




7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
3
What is RTI?
RTI is a system for educational redesign
based on a hierarchy of interventions
which are implemented to meet the
needs of students who demonstrate
underachievement in core academic
areas of literacy and math (Howell, Patton, &
Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention,)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
4
RTI for All Students
 RTI practices are built on the belief that all
students can learn and everyone supports all
students
 RTI focuses on student intervention need and
not “What is wrong with the student?”
 Systems Change: Integrated approach
 No one building/district will look the same
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
5
RTI Leadership
In order for RTI to be effective in
raising student achievement, strong
leadership must be provided by the
board of education, the superintendent
and his or her staff, and school
principals and staff (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 17
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
6
District RTI Round Table
The district round table is appointed by
the superintendent to provide
leadership in the design, development,
implementation and evaluation of the
RTI system
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
7
District RTI Round Table
Recommended membership:







Superintendent or designee
Leader(s) of curriculum and instruction
Assessment leader
Teacher representatives
Principals representing K-12
Educational support staff
Parent representation (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention, pgs. 20-21)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
8
Role of District Round Table
 Work with the board of education to
provide the necessary information and
skills to set policy
 Establish a multiyear commitment for
RTI study and implementation
 Develop team norms and expectations
 Develop a logic system (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention, pgs. 22-23)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
9
Role of the District Round Table
cont’d
 Establish the “look fors”
 Conduct a root cause analysis at the
district level
 Establish the implementation objectives,
strategies, tasks, timelines and
resources based on a root cause
analysis action plan (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention, pgs. 24-25)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
10
School Site RTI Leadership Team
 Operates much as district round table




but focuses on site
Has multi-disciplinary representation
Is a multi-year commitment
Develop “look fors” for site based on
district priorities
Complete an environmental scan (Howell,
Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg.
32-33)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
11
Role of District & Site RTI Round
Tables/Leadership Teams
Round table should conduct periodic
reviews to insure they are:
 Setting direction
 Developing people
 Developing the organization
(Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention,
pg. 28-30)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
12
Critical Implementation Plan
Components







Site assessment using rubric
Strong administrative leadership
Qualified staff
Program champion(s)
Program integration
Training and technical assistance
Implementation fidelity
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
13
Fidelity Activity
Please take 5 minutes to rate your
district or your school in each of the
categories of the RTI Indicators
Checklist you have received. If you
have colleagues from your district or
school feel free to work together.
Please be identify what you see as your
priorities
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
14
Problem Solving Team
Problem Solving Teams (PSTs) use data to
discern current issues that exacerbate failure
or underperformance, discover the root
cause or primary problem(s), and create a
continuous improvement process to close the
gap between a child’s performance and
grade level, national norm or expected
achievement (Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding
Response to Intervention, pg. 39)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
15
Problem Solving Team
 Designated Problem Solving Team, not





Child Study Team or Staffing Team
Diverse membership of best people
Meets regularly
Has defined roles
Uses data to make decisions
Process to recognize hard work and to
celebrate successes
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
16
Composition of the Problem
Solving Team
 Regular Education teachers of various





levels and disciplines
School counselors
School psychologists or social workers
Instructional specialists/coaches
Special educators
Principal/administrator as chair/leader
(Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to
Intervention, pg. 47)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
17
Ad Hoc Problem Solving Team
Participants
 Referring teacher(s)
 Parent(s) of referred student
(Howell, Patton
& Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 47)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
18
Root Cause Analysis
Root Cause Analysis is an eight step
problem-solving process that focuses on
an ongoing problem-solving cycle rather
than a one time effort (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention , pg. 40)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
19
Root Cause Analysis
1. Define the problem based on
2.
3.
4.
5.
identification of a sentinel event
Gather additional data and evidence
Identify contributory issues
Delineate possible root causes
Develop solution recommendations for
the primary causes (Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 41)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
20
Root Cause Analysis
cont’d
6. Implement solutions to eliminate or
diminish the causes
7. Retest solutions based on data
8. Review data from Steps 1-7 to
determine systemic prevention or
intervention strategies (Howell, Patton &
Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 41)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
21
Root Cause Analysis
 Provides a well-defined system of
evaluation using student-based
assessments
 Applies measures to monitor what
educators are achieving with students
on a daily basis
 Guides staff in evaluating and acting on
the results of students’ work
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
22
High Quality
Instruction/Interventions
 Use of Evidence-Based (Scientifically
Supported) Strategies, Programs and
Procedures
 Includes Effective Curriculum
 Includes Effective Instructional
Strategies and Procedures
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
23
High Quality
Instruction/Interventions (Cont’d)
 Curriculum and instruction approaches
must have a high probability of success for
the majority of students
 Increase intensity of instruction and
practice
 Opportunity for explicit and systematic
instruction/practice
 Provide skillful instruction with good error
correction, immediate feedback
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
24
High Quality Instruction
Interventions cont’d
 Guided by and in response to progress
monitoring data
 Must provide a supportive atmosphere
for learning
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
25
Lack of Response to
Interventions
 Defined as rate of improvement, or
progress slope that is not sufficient for
the student to become proficient with
state standards without more
interventions
 Decisions to advance students from one
tier to another is based upon analysis of
the progress monitoring data to
determine if the student is responsive
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
26
Use of Data
 Inform instruction
 Validate alignment of the curriculum
 Insure that we are meeting standards
 Determine if what is taught is learned
 Focus on progress monitoring
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
27
Types of Data
 State and National
Provides the ‘Big Picture’ of school or
district’s performance
Helps identify root causes
 Benchmarking is the process of
assessing all students three times per
school year in reading, writing and
math (Howell, Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to
Intervention. Pg. 81)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
28
Types of Data
cont’d
 Progress Monitoring provides the
formative assessment link between
instruction and high stakes testing (Understanding Response to Intervention pg. 75)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
29
Professional Development
Activity
Select one of the identified topics (assigned a
corner of the room) that best represents your
professional development needs. As a group
determine 3 critical professional development
needs in the area you have selected.
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
30
Progress Monitoring
Curriculum-based measurements
(CBMs) are quick and easy normed
assessments providing valuable on
student learning. CBMS are inexpensive,
easy to use and quickly administered in
2 to 5 minutes ((Howell, Patton & Deiotte,
Understanding Response to Intervention pgs. 77 - 78)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
31
Progress Monitoring
Probes enable teachers to monitor
student progress on a daily,
weekly, semimonthly or monthly
basis without loss of validity (Howell,
Patton & Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg
80)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
32
Progress Monitoring
CBMs…
 Determine a student’s individual
instructional level within the curriculum
 Establish long term goals and monitor
individuals and groups of students
 Assist teachers and PSTs in making
decisions regarding the impact of
teaching on learning
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
33
Progress Monitoring
CBMs…
 Measure the impact of interventions
 Measure the impact of the over-all
problem-solving process (Howell, Patton &
Deiotte, Understanding Response to Intervention, pg. 80)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
34
Managing RTI Data
We strongly recommend the use of an
electronic data management system to
allow the classroom teacher and the
Problem Solving Teams to graph
student data without that component
becoming and overwhelming factor and
impeding the total RTI process.
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
35
Managing RTI Data
Requirements in a system…
CBM probes that are normed and
validated
A wide variety of multi-grade and
multi-discipline probes
Interoperability with student
information systems and other
available systems
Easy access for teachers
Easy data entry and one data entry if
possible
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
36
Parents can be Response To
Intervention’s best ally!
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
37
Parent Involvement
 Avoid ‘educationese’ language
 Provide translators as needed
 Schedule meeting times that do not
overly burden parents
 Send agendas and information in
advance to parents
 Adhere to meeting agenda
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
38
Opportunities for Parent
Involvement
 Help with RTI Website
 Do joint presentations with staff
 Help with newsletter articles
 Make presentations at school
events (PTA, Open Houses, etc.)
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
39
Opportunities for Parent
Involvement cont’d
 Help develop hardcopy and visual
communications
 Serve on District RTI Round Table
 Serve on School Site Leadership
Team
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
40
Sustainability Challenges
 Information dissemination networks are





limited
Lack of team/collaborative efforts
Time for collaboration
Turnover in leadership, particularly school
principals and lead staff
Organized opposition, usually union based
Failing to use power of parents
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
41
Take Home Points
Developing an RTI implementation plan
Identifying leadership responsibilities
Acquiring implementation strategies
Understanding the critical role of the
Problem Solving Team (PST)
 Delineating root causes
 Choosing appropriate interventions
 Using progress monitoring and
curriculum-based measurements




7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
42
Questions & Survey
Contact Information:
Sandy Patton
[email protected]
or
Marcia Kaplan
[email protected]
Presentation Available at:
www.tecedge.net/Presentations/
Implementing_RTI_Systemically.htm
http://www.ascd.org/conferences/
acpresenterupload.aspx
Resources
 www.nasdse.org
 www.nwrel.org/nwrcc/RTI/
 www.ritap.org/RTI/resources/web_
resources.php
 www.interventioncentral.org
 www.autoskill.com/intervention/RTI.php
 www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/RTI.aspx
 www.cssd11.k12.co.us/RTI/
 [email protected]
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
46
Research and References
Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004). Empirically based special
service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The
Journal of Special Education, 38, 66-79.
Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York:
Plenum Press.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. C., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice. Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
47
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2006). Response to Intervention: Principles
and Strategies for Effective Instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Deno, S. (1985). “Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.”
Exceptional Children, 52, 219-684.
Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification. Minneapolis, MN:
Leadership Training Institute for Special Education.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted
education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K.,
& Shaywitz, S. E. (2002). Classification of Learning Difficulties: An Evidencebased Evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
48
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What,
why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to intervention): Rethinking
special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading
Research Quarterly, 41, 99-108.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in
special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Howell. R.J., Patton, S. L., & Deiotte, M. T. (2008) Understanding Response to
Intervention. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to
intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108-117.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation: An individual
guide. New York: Plenum Press.
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
49
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Kratochwill, T. R., Clements, M., A., & Kalamon, K. (in press). Reconsidering
response to intervention: Conceptual, methodological, and psychometric issues.
In S. Jimmerson, M. Burns, and A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.) The handbook of
response to intervention. New York: Springer Science, Inc.
Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S. N., & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Problem solving
consultation. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.). Best Practices. Washington,
DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Bethesda, MD: Author.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to
intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National
Association of State Directors of Special Education.
Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral
consultation: An individual guide. New York: Plenum Press.
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
50
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Newell, M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (in press). Response to intervention: Cultural issues
and considerations. In S. Jimmerson, M. Burns, and A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.)
The handbook of response to intervention. New York: Springer Science, Inc.
Reschly, D. J., Tilly III, W. D., & Grimes, J. P. (1999). Special Education in
Transition: Functional Assessment and Non-categorical Programming.
Longmont, CO: Sorpis West.
Rosenfield, S., Silva, A., & Gravois, T. A. (in press). Bringing instructional
consultation to scale: Research and development of IC and IC teams. In W.
Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.) Handbook of research in school consultation:
Empirical foundations for the field. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
7/17/2015
©Howell, Kerr & Patton
51
Thank You and Good Luck