Transcript How to turn a puzzle into a pyramid: Fitting together the

How to Turn a Puzzle into a
Pyramid: Fitting Together the
Interactive Pieces of
Problem Solving, SST and RTI
Lynn LeLoup Pennington
Education Consultant, President of SSTAGE
and
Frank Smith
GaDOE, Psychological Services & SST
How do we create and harness the power
of data-driven problem solving; and
make it the "glue" for integrating :
•
•
•
•
assessment
progress monitoring
instruction and learning
interventions
-in your school's Pyramid of Interventions?
Why the pyramid and why now?
It can provide:
• a common sense framework to
continuously improve results for all students
• an integrated approach to service
delivery that encompasses general and
special education
• a structure for logically embedding research
based assessment and teaching/learning
practices
Why the pyramid and why now?
• New federal and state regulations
(have caught up with emerging defensible practices)
State Special Ed rules (eff. July 1)
have exclusionary clauses for 5 areas
that require retrospective proof that student
did not learn despite appropriate teaching
match.
A child must not be determined to be [EBD, ID, OHI, SDD]
if the primary factor for that determination is:
a. Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the
essential components of reading instruction;
b. Lack of appropriate instruction in math;
c. Lack of appropriate instruction in writing;
d. Limited English proficiency;
e. Visual, hearing or motor disability;
f. [EBD add intellectual], [ID add emotional], [OHI add both]
disabilities, [SDD subtract atypical attendance history]
g. Cultural factors;
h. Environmental or economic disadvantage; or
i. Atypical education history (multiple school attendance, lack
of attendance, etc.).
A child must not be determined to be a child with a
specific learning disability if the determinant factor is:
a. Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, [specifically:]
(phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension);
b. Lack of appropriate instruction in math;
c. Lack of appropriate instruction in writing;
d. Limited English proficiency;
e. Visual, hearing or motor disability;
f. Intellectual disabilities;
g. Emotional disturbances;
h. Cultural factors;
i. Environmental or economic disadvantage; or
j. Atypical educational history
Specific Learning Disability
160-4-7-.05 Appendix (i)
(b) Supplementary instruction is provided:
(i) that lasts for a minimum of 12 weeks;
(ii) At least four data collections of
progress monitoring occur during the
twelve weeks;
(iii) the strategies used and the progress
monitoring results are presented to the
parents at regular intervals
Paradigm Shift
• From - the problem is within the student
To - the problem is due to a breakdown in
the teaching and learning interaction
• From – thinking in terms of Special Ed
categories
To - solving the problems of students
• From – a “wait to fail” approach
To - prevent failure, enable success
Randy Allison & Martin Ikeda
Paradigm Shift
• From – searching for pathology
To – focusing on what instructional and
learning variables are needed for success
• From – generalized discussions of
students’ problems (can’t read, doesn’t
comprehend, not motivated, etc.)
To – using a data-driven, decision making
process (specifically, “what is he expected
to do; and what can he do now?”)
Randy Allison & Martin Ikeda
Pyramid basics – What we do know
• The pieces of the puzzle include –
I. Standards-based classroom learning
II. Needs-based learning
III. SST-driven learning
IV. Specially designed learning
But how do they all work together?
What is
the glue
that holds
all the
pieces
together
at each of
the tiers?
It’s a Data-Based
Problem Solving
Process!
Tier 3
Tier 2
Tier 1
Data-driven
problem solving is
the engine within the
pyramid which
provides educators
with the power and
know-how to make
informed decisions at
each tier by putting
together all the
pieces.
The Problem Solving Process…
Data-Driven Decision Making
SEE
(Step 6)
(Steps 1 & 2)
PLAN
CHECK
DO
(Step 5)
(Steps 3 & 4)
Problem solving in a nutshell…
SEE - PLAN - DO - CHECK
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identify problem (descriptive & measurable)
Gather information and analyze data
Establish instructional/behavioral objectives
Develop an educational plan (which specifies
teaching/learning strategies and ongoing
assessment measures)
5. Implement plan
6. Evaluate plan periodically, adjust as needed
Source: Student Support Team Coordinator Standards, PSC Endorsement (2005)
• Data-based problem solving represents
the core conceptual basis of addressing
students’ academic and behavioral
problems whether we are focusing on …
– the entire school
– a single grade level
– one classroom
– a small group
– one student
?
?
Data-based problem solving has
usually been identified as a Tier 3
and Tier 4 process, but it is not
limited to only those two tiers.
It MUST BE the process that guides
decision making at every tier!
Otherwise, we will miss the opportunity
to have an integrated and coordinated
approach to service delivery across
the pyramid.
Problem solving is a cyclical process
which repeats at each tier, but in a more
formal and systematic way as it moves up
the pyramid in response to the intensity of
the problem and the intensity of the
services needed to address the needs of
the student.
• At Tier 1, look for what are the
“common” needs of students rather
than looking for the differences.
• Problem solve on school-level, gradelevel or course-level effects.
The problem solving process is not about
proving what’s wrong with the student.
• It’s ALL about finding out
how to teach the student
so he can learn.
• It’s discovering who that child is
…as a LEARNER.
Who guides the process
at each of the tiers and who
will answer these questions?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Are our students learning?
How do we know they are learning?
Which students are not learning?
Why aren’t they learning?
What do they need in order to learn?
What must we do to provide it? (who, when,
where and for how long)
Collaborative Teams and Partnerships
 Tier 1
Teams and support personnel
 Grade level teams?
 Department teams?
 Professional Learning Communities ?
 Tier 2
Teams and support personnel
 Grade level teams?
 Professional Learning Communities ?
 RTI Teams?
 Tier 3
Student Support Teams
 Other decision-making teams ?
 Tier 4
IEP/Gifted Teams
Is one of these team
members a parent?
What are we doing to engage
parents and families at the
different tiers?
Can the framework of the
pyramid and the six Student,
Family, and Community
Involvement and Support
Standards lead us to improve
how we address the needs of
parents and families?
• Parenting
• Communicating
• Learning at Home
• Decision-Making
• Advocacy
• Collaborating with
Community
What is this?
Greater Expectations for SST
• Get ready
– Data-based problem solving including:
• Problem analysis
• Data gathering, diagnostic assessment,
and interpretation
• Monitoring student performance
– Researched-based strategies and
interventions
– Evidence of intervention fidelity and integrity
– Follow-up support and coaching
Problem Solving is
Systems Thinking
“We tend to focus on snapshots
of isolated parts of the system,
and wonder why our deepest
problems never seem to get
solved.”
Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline, 1990
Achieving Full Scale Implementation
• It may take years of preparation for schools to
reach the point at which they can actually use
data to make informed decisions to guide
intervention and learning disability eligibility
(RTI).
• There is a developmental progression of
practices that have to be adopted, implemented
and eventually institutionalized (Fullan, 2001)
before teams will have adequate assessment
data for eligibility decisions.
(Nebraska DOE)
Developmental Progression Toward Full
Scale Implementation of RTI (Nebraska DOE)
Avoiding Pitfalls to
Full Scale Implementation
• Build awareness and understanding of the
Pyramid of Interventions and the need for
problem solving and RTI.
– How they relate to other mandates.
– How they relate to shared values in the school.
• Build infrastructure before innovation is added.
– On-going professional learning for all staff
– Time for professionals to collaborate, problem solve
– Re-examine roles and resources
Do not oversimplify the
innovation and the
process. Some people
think they understand
what to do, when in
reality they do not
grasp the complexity
and the intricacies of
the innovation, in
particular the databased problem
solving.
Lessons learned
from others…
• Teams and schools require substantial
training to effectively implement databased problem solving (explicit training,
modeling, controlled opportunities to
apply, onsite support)
• Devote intense focus to systems change
• Requires a significant paradigm shift
(Callender & Ruby)
Where do we begin?
• Take stock of what you already have in place.
In other words, what’s your baseline or entry
level in terms of…
–
–
–
–
Perceptions, attitudes and understanding?
Tier 1 learning and instructional practices?
Assessment and progress monitoring tools?
Which students are receiving supplemental
interventions and what are they?
– Problem solving teams?
– Roles and responsibilities?
– Resources?
Assessment Tools
• We have more assessment data available
in the classroom than ever before, but are
we extracting meaning from what we
already have?
• Are we using it to transform
our instructional practices?
• Data must have “instructional utility” or it’s
a waste of time for educators and
students.
Assessment Tools
What do we
currently have
available?
What does it
measure?
For which grade
level(s) is the
assessment
appropriate?
Are we using the
data from this
assessment
effectively?
Additional
information and
recommendations
Additional questions • When it is this assessment given and how often?
• Is the tool designed or suitable as a benchmark assessment, a universal
screening tool, or for progress monitoring?
• For progress monitoring tools, use the evaluation criteria of the National
Center on Student Progress Monitoring www.studentprogress.org
Problem Solving is
Professional Learning
•
When teachers use the data-driven
problem solving in a culture of teamwork,
teachers’ skills grow and their
professional knowledge deepens.
•
Problem solving connects teacher
learning to student learning.
(Deojay & Pennington, 2004)
With the Pyramid of
Interventions we may…
• Provide increasingly more intensive
interventions
• Embed systematic, collaborative, databased problem solving processes
• Engage parents as partners in assisting
student learning
With the Pyramid of
Interventions we may…
• Embrace a model of prevention, not a
model of failure
• Focus on results, not procedural and
process compliance
• Assess to inform instruction, not to
determine classification
References:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allison, R., & Ikeda, M., From Theory to Practice: Critical Considerations for
Response to Intervention, Iowa Department of Education, (2006)
Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J.F., Prasse, D., Reschly,
D.J., Schrag, J., & Tilly III, W.D., (2005), Response to intervention: Policy
considerations and implementation, Alexandria, VA, National Association of State
Directors of Special Education, Inc.
Batsche, George, Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Implications for
Policy and Practice, G-CASE Presentation, 11-9-06
Bergan, J.R. (1977) Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH, Charles E. Merrill
Brown-Chidsey, Rachel & Steege, Mark W. (2005) Response to intervention:
principals and strategies for effective instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Callender, Wayne and Ruby, Susan Getting Started with Response to Intervention
(RTI): Big Ideas and Essential Components,
www.k12.wa.us/conferences/summerinstitute2006/Materials/CallenderW2/OSPIhand
outs1.pdf
Chalfant, J.C., Pysh, M.V. & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model
for within-building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85-95.
References:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deojay, T.R., & Pennington, L.L. (2004) Content: Connecting data, professional
development, and student achievement. In Powerful designs for professional
learning. Easton, L. (ed.), Oxford, OH, National Staff Development Council
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Karhanek, G. (2004), Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN,
National Educational Service
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY :
Teachers College Press.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D., Applying Progress Monitoring to RTI Prevention and
Identification,, Vanderbilt University, [www.studentprogress.org]
Jenkins, Tom, Problem Solving Model in Detail Preparation for Implementation, North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Exceptional Children Division
Hofmeister, A.M. (2000). Strategies for effective academic instruction: What is an
instructional program? The Utah Special Educator, 20(4), 4-5.
Response-to-Intervention Technical Assistance Document, Nebraska Department of
Education and the University of Nebraska (June 2006)
Tilly, D. (2003, December). Heartland Area Education Agency’s evolution from four
to three tiers: Our journey - our results. Paper presented at the National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas
City, MO.
Websites
• Intervention Central,
www.interventioncentral.org
• National Center for Student Progress
Monitoring, www.studentprogress.org
• What Works Clearinghouse,
www.whatworks.ed.gov
• National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities, www.nrcld.org
• National Association of School
Psychologists, www.nasponline.org
To contact us:
Lynn L. Pennington
Office: 770-752-9941
[email protected]
Frank Smith
Office: 404-656-5805
[email protected]