Transcript Slide 1

Foundations for A Problem
Solving, School-Wide Model
Rhode Island Technical Assistance Project
Summer Institute
July 24 and 25, 2003
Correspondence about this presentation should be directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500 Corporate Dr.,
Johnston, IA 50131. Email is [email protected], (515) 270-9030.
Overview of PS, SWM Objectives





Communicate major
components of a
problem solving,
school wide model
Provide an integrative
picture of the
STRUCTURE
Example effectiveness
data on model
implementation
Provide a picture of
the PROCESS of
getting it all in place
Begin to consider
application in your
setting
Keep Our Eye on The Prize
 100
Percent
of our
students
proficient by
the year ’13’14
Vocabulary – Convergence of Thinking



Problem Solving Model (PS): Proposed,
implemented and refined since the early ’80s in
special education as an alternative system to the
traditional Refer-Test-Place system. It encompasses
both general education and special education
systems. Initially was individual student focused.
Response To Intervention (RTI) – Also called a
Standard Treatment Approach (STA): Being
proposed by researchers across the country as an
alternative method for identifying individuals with
Learning Disabilities. An opportunity to link IDEA
thinking with NCLB thinking.
School-Wide Model (SWM): An integrative way of
thinking logically and rationally about meeting All
childrens’ needs in a school. It represents a
promising way for schools to comprehensively draw
together and allocate their resources to meet
childrens’ educational needs.
Important Point




They are not different
The represent different spins on the
same core thinking by different
people
The same “big components” are
there
We will attempt to use these terms
with precision for clarity sake
Important Point!




Everything from here on out represents
guidelines, not absolutes
The problems are the same everywhere
you go
The principals for solving them are the
same
The SPECIFICS will be different in your
setting
 Your
solutions will differ
from our solutions!!!!!!
PS, RTI, School Wide Model
What it is
Represents a way of:
What it is not
A panacea
Using data to examine the system in
relation to most important results.
Structuring thinking so that we
don’t miss anything
A curriculum, an intervention,
one theoretical orientation
Identifying strategies with a high
probability of improving student
performance and knowing if they
work
One size fits all
Keeping our attention focused on
the most important things
Hoops to jump through
Common sense into practice
(cf. Fullan)
Easier than what came before
Quote


We have witnessed over the last 30 years numerous
attempts at planned educational change. The
benefits have not nearly equaled the costs, and all
too often, the situation has seemed to worsen. We
have, however, gained clearer and clearer insights
over this period about the do’s and don’ts of bringing
about change….One of the most promising features
of this new knowledge about change is that
successful examples of innovation are based on what
might be most accurately labeled “organized
common sense.” (Fullan, 1991, p. xi-xii)
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.
New York, NY : Teachers College Press.
The Marriage of Problem Solving and
School-Wide Models
The Problem Solving Approach
Level IV
Amount of Resources
Needed to Solve Problem
IEP
Consideration
Level III
Consultation With
Extended Problem
Solving Team
• Define the
Problem
Level II
Consultation with
Other Resources
Level I
Consultation
Between
Teachers-Parents
• Develop
a Plan
• Evaluate
• Implement
Plan
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
If you teach the same curriculum, to all
students, at the same time, at the same rate,
using the same materials, with the same
instructional methods, with the same
expectations for performance and grade on a
curve you have fertile ground for growing
special education.
Gary Germann, 2003
The Problem Solving Process
•
Define the Problem
(Screening and Diagnostic Assessments)
What is the problem and why is it happening?
• Develop a Plan
• Evaluate
(Goal Setting and Planning)
(Progress Monitoring
Assessment)
What are we
going to do?
Did our plan work?
• Implement Plan
(Treatment Integrity)
Carry out the intervention
The Problem Solving Approach
Amount of Resources
Needed to Solve Problem
Initial
Instruction
Level IV
IEP
Consideration
Level III
Consultation With
Extended Problem
Solving Team
Level II
Consultation with
Other Resources
Level I
Consultation
Between
Teachers-Parents
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level One
Consultation Between Teacher and Parent
• Define the Problem
Informal discussion focusing on behaviors of concern
• Evaluate
Parent and teacher
determine effectiveness
and need for additional
resources
Teacher
• Develop a Plan
Parent
Anecdotal
documentation
• Implement Plan
Parent and teacher gather information and monitor
The Problem Solving Approach
Strategic Instruction/
Intervention
Level IV
Amount of Resources
Needed to Solve Problem
IEP
Consideration
Level III
Consultation With
Extended Problem
Solving Team
Level II
Consultation with
Other Resources
Level I
Consultation
Between
Teachers-Parents
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level Two
Strategic Instruction:
Consultation with Other Resources
• Define the Problem
-Available Screenings
-Further definition of the problem
Teacher
• Evaluate
-Data used to evaluate
progress
-Success determined
• Develop a Plan
BAT
Building
Assistance
Team
Parent
• Implement Plan
-Team
offers strategies
-Solutions generated
-Plan written
- Team assists with implementation
- Data collected from naturally occurring sources if possible
Level Three
Strategic Instruction: Consultation with
Extended Problem Solving Team
• Define the Problem
-Identify concern
-Define behavior of concern
-Problem validation
• Evaluate
Teacher
-Problem analysis
-Functional assessment
-Write problem statement
• Develop a Plan
-Generate possible solutions
-Data analyzed to
BAT
AEA
-Evaluate solutions
determine effectiveness
-Select a solution
-Success determined by
-Collect baseline data
rate of progress & size of
-Set a goal
discrepancy
Parent
-Write action plan
-Recycle or determine
-Select measurement strategy
need to consider
-Develop plan to evaluate
entitlement for special
effectiveness
• Implement Plan
education
-Implement according to written plan
-Ongoing systematic data collection
-Follow-up as needed
The Problem Solving Approach
Level IV
Amount of Resources
Needed to Solve Problem
IEP
Consideration
Level III
Consultation With
Extended Problem
Solving Team
Level II
Consultation with
Other Resources
Level I
Consultation
Between
Teachers-Parents
Intensive Instruction
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level Four
Intensive Instruction: Intervention and
Entitlement Consideration
(Due Process)
• Define the Problem
-Identify additional areas of concern
-Develop assessment questions
Teacher
• Evaluate
-Success determined by rate of
progress and size of
discrepancy
-Plan rewritten once per year
or as often as data indicates
the need
-Collect additional data necessary for
entitlement decision
BAT
AEA
Parent
• Develop a Plan
-Using all data gathered at all levels
problem
solving , determine if
appropriate interventions and whether
or not special education services are
needed.
-Team develops IEP
• Implement Plan
-Implement according to IEP
-Ongoing systematic data collection
-Instructional changes made as needed
Some Characteristics

Works in important student performance
domains




Academics
 Reading
 Math
 Science
 Writing
Social, emotional and behavioral development
Works for large groups, small groups and
individuals
Consistent logic set is used throughout
Elements of an Effective Model







Set of goals
Valid and reliable assessment system to monitor
progress
Adoption of research proven materials and
programs
Adequate, prioritized instructional time
Differentiated instruction, grouping, and
scheduling
Strong instructional leaders maintaining focus and
establishing support mechanisms
An integrated system of research-based
professional development and resource allocation.
Adapted from Kame’enui and Simmons
Acknowledgments

The triangle for resource allocation
comes from a number of different
places




Mental Health (Adelman and Taylor)
Social, Emotional and Behavioral
Development (Sugai and Horner)
Curriculum and Instruction (Kame’enui
and Simmons)
The School Wide Model
School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Why use a School-Wide Approach?





The best way to address problems is to prevent
them before they happen
Achievement of all students is everyone’s
responsibility within a school.
Early intervention to promote success is critical to
future school achievement.
Early intervention requires accurate identification of
children at risk for failure.
Assessment, instruction, and meaningful outcomes
for students must be aligned.
Why use a School-Wide Approach?




Some students will require intensive interventions.
Assessment data will be needed to determine
resources needed to address concerns.
Ongoing monitoring should direct instructional
decisions and be repeated with the frequency
needed for timely interventions.
“No matter how great the idea or how compelling
the research, if an intervention is not working,
something must change.”
Foundations Activity #1a



Identify a person at your table to
work with
Look in your activity packet, turn to
Foundations activity #1a
Brainstorm a list things you
remember about a PS, School wide
model from the presentation. What
stood out most for you? Why is it
important?
Activity 1b


Come together at your table.
Discuss:



How is the problem solving/school wide model
similar to service delivery in your school
today?
How do the models differ from the service
delivery model in your school today?
What questions arise at this point for your
group? Write them down, put them on the
parking lot.
Problem Solving and the
School-Wide Model in Practice
H
eartland Early Literacy Project
“Helping Children Read ...Helping Teachers Teach”
Four Organizing Principles

Earlier rather than later -Prevention and early intervention
are supremely more effective and
efficient than later intervention and
remediation for ensuring reading
success.
Four Organizing Principles

Schools, not just
programs -Prevention and
early intervention
must be anchored
to the school as
the host
environment and
primary context
for improving
student outcomes.
Four Organizing Principles

Evidence, not
opinion -Prevention and
early intervention
pedagogy,
programs,
instruction and
materials should
be based on
trustworthy
scientific evidence.
Four Organizing Principles
 Each
and All-- To teach all
children to read, we must teach
each child to read.
Kame’enui, E. and Simmons, D. (2002)
University of Oregon, Beginning
Reading Institute
We’re aiming to help children establish trajectories
toward success
High
Trajectory- “the path a projectile
makes under the action of given forces
such as thrust, wind and gravity.”
--Encarta World English Dictionary
Low
P
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 +
Assessment and Instructional Grouping
Benchmark 1
Benchmark 2
Score
Time
Benchmark 3
Assessment and Instructional Grouping
Benchmark 1
Benchmark 2
Score
Time
Benchmark 3
What Does the School-Wide
Model Look Like?
Key Features of HELP


DIBELS
Student interventions based on response
to instruction





Benchmark
Strategic
Intensive
Ongoing Monitoring
Instructional changes based on data


Literacy Team
Administrative support
Continuous School Improvement
Assess Needs
Evaluation
Planning
Implementation and Monitoring
Five Stages to Implementation
Stage One


Conduct School Audit
Assess Student Performance
Assess Needs
Evaluation
Planning
Implementation
Ed Kameenui and Deb
Simmons
Conduct a
School
Audit
Planning and
Evaluation Tool for
Effective SchoolWide Reading
Programs
Ed Kame’enui and Deb
Simmons
Assess Student Performance
 Benchmark
assessments 3 times per
year for all students
 Ongoing monitoring for strategic
students once per month
 Ongoing monitoring for intensive
students once per week
 Literacy team assisting teachers in
providing instruction guided by data
Stage Two



Analyze School and
Student Performance
Identify Reading
Priorities
Identify Students who
require



Assess Needs
Benchmark Intervention
Strategic Intervention Evaluation
Intensive Intervention
Planning
Implementation
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
Intensive Interventions 5%
Strategic Interventions 15%
Core Curriculum 80%
Adapted from: Sugai and Horner
Stage Three


Design Core Instructional Interventions
Customize Intensive and Strategic
Interventions Assess Needs
Evaluation
Planning
Implementation
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction to
Achieve Instructional Priorities
Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons
Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction to
Achieve Instructional Priorities
Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons
A Consumer’s
Guide To
Evaluating a
Core Reading
Program
Grades K-3: A
Critical
Elements
Analysis
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
Stage Four


Establish and Implement Progress
Monitoring System
Customize Progress Monitoring System for
Intensive and Strategic Interventions
Assess Needs
Planning
Evaluation
Implementation
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
First Grade Benchmark Goals
(Working Backwards)
Established Reader by Spring of First Grade
if you hit 40 or more correct on Curriculum-Based
Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring of first grade you
are an established reader.
Established Alphabetic Principle by Winter of First Grade
if you hit 40 or more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in
winter of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or more
correct on Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring
of first grade.
Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione
Kindergarten Benchmark Goals:
Established Phonological Awareness by Spring of
Kindergarten
if you hit 35 to 45 correct on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)
in spring of K/fall of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or
more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in winter of first
grade.
Established Initial Sounds (Onset) Phonological Awareness
by Winter of Kindergarten
if you hit 25 - 35 correct on Onset Recognition Fluency (OnRF) in
winter of K, the odds are in your favor to reach 35 to 45 correct on
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in spring of K.
Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione
Stage Five


Evaluate School Level Performance
Intensify Intervention
Assess Needs
Evaluation
Planning
Implementation
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
How are we doing?
Components of Successful School
Implementation of HELP







Administrative Support
Link to School Improvement
Adequate Time for Staff
Development
Materials
Data Collection by Teachers
Data Interpretation and
Understanding
Instruction Guided by Data
Cross-year box plots phonological awareness Kindergarten
Heartland Students
2001-2002
Beginning:
Middle: 4393
End: 4590
2000-2001
Beginning:
Middle: 4336
End: 4331
1999-2000
Beginning:
Middle: 1832
End: 2108
Cross-year box plots oral reading fluency First Grade
Heartland Students
:
Legend
2001=2002
Beginning:
Middle: 4427
End: 4412
2000-2001
Beginning:
Middle: 4036
End: 4151
1999-2000
Beginning:
Middle: 1595
End: 1879
Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New
Special Education Placements: Kindergarten Across 36
School Buildings
70
Number of New SPED Placements
60
50
55% Reduction in
Kindergarten New SPED
Placements
Insert K Placement Data
40
30
20
10
0
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
School Year
00-01
01-02.
Prior to HELP
Mean
HELP Implementation
Mean
Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New
Special Education Placments: First Grade Across 36
Schools
80
Prior to HELP
Mean
HELP Implementation
Mean
Number of New Special Education Placements
70
60
Insert 1 Placement Data
50
40
30
27% Reduction in First-Grade
New Special Education
Placements
20
10
0
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
School Year
00-01
01-02.
Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New
Special Education Placements: Second Grade for 36
Schools
Number of New Special Education Placements
120
Prior to HELP
Mean
HELP Implementation
Mean
100
80
60
40
24% Reduction in SecondGrade SPED Placements
20
0
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
School Year
00-01
01-02.
Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special
Education Placements: Third-Grade for 36 Schools
350
Prior to HELP
Mean
HELP Implementation
Mean
Number of New Special Education Placements
300
250
200
150
8% Reduction in Third-Grade
New SPED Placements
100
50
0
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
School Year
00-01
01-02.
Punch Line
Table 1. Z-Score Growth For Phonemic Segmentation
Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 1999-2002.
Mean Z Score
Median Z Score
Number of
Scores
Low Z Score
High Z Score
Yr1-Yr2 Z
Score
0.71
Yr 1- Yr 3 Z
Scores
1.08
0.70
1.25
85
-3.76
3.93
36
-0.77
3.29
Punch Line
Table 2. Z-Score Growth For Oral Reading Fluency,
Heartland Early Literacy Program 2002-2003.
Yr1-Yr2 Z Score
Yr 1- Yr 3 Z scores
Mean Z Score
0.26
0.39
Median Z Score
0.32
0.36
86
32
Low Z Score
-2.15
-0.68
High Z Score
2.49
2.47
Number of
Scores
Foundations Activity #2



Leave your stuff, take your activity handout, get up
and find a new table.
Rule for new table: no one from your current table
should be there. Sit down. Introduce yourself.
At your new table discuss your answers to the following
questions:

If we implemented a system of early intervention similar
to this in all of our schools, what implications might it
have for









Teachers?
Administrators?
Parents?
NCLB Implementation?
IDEA Implementation?
At risk students?
Students with disabilities?
Talented and Gifted Students?
Secondary Students?