Transcript RtI at Chisago Lakes High School

Successful Implementation of RtI at the
Secondary Level: Strategies and Solutions
Learned
Presented by
Sara Johnson, Assistant Principal
Dave Ertl, Principal
Chisago Lakes High School
Holly Windram, Asst. Special Education Director
SCRED
March 26, 2009
Introductions
Get ready for
the journey
Windram & Johnson, 2008
A Three-Tier Model
School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Academic Systems
RtI
Behavior Systems
PBIS
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
5-10%
10-15%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Tier 3
Tier 2
75-85%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
10-15%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
75-85%
Tier 1
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
SCRED RtI Model: Academics and
Social/Emotional/Behavior
Tier 3:
Some
Tier 2:
Few
Tier 1:
All
Problem-Solving & Organization
Why RtI at the Secondary
Level?
“Shouldn’t all the Special Ed kids be identified already?”
“I’m here to teach the kids who show up to learn.”
“I have to get through my content and you want me to teach
[insert 1 million other things here]”
“Won’t I have to do more work?”
“How is this relevant to me - today - right now?”
“It’s just another initiative.”
“When is lunch?”
“Is this workshop over yet?”
Why RtI at the Secondary
Level
• NCLB
• IDEA 2004
• Prevention
We need more options
Traditional Model
Amount of Resources Needed To Benefit
Special Education
General Education
Sea of kids in the
“gray” area
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
New System of Problem
Solving
Amount of Resources Needed To Benefit
Special Education
General Education
General Education
with Support
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Bridging the Gap
Core + Intensive
Amount of Resources Needed To
Benefit
Core + Supplemental
Weekly
Core
Weekly-Monthly
3x/year
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Ready?
Pop Quiz
Chisago Lakes High School
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1200 students
10% special education
8% free/reduced lunch
1% English Language Learning
Four, 85 minute blocks
98% graduation rate
Credit increase: 29 by 2009-10
Windram & Johnson, 2008
02-03 School Year:
Catalyst for Change
•
•
Incoming 9th graders.
Top concerns: academic skills, social
interactions, and work completion issues
Sound familiar?
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Ninth grade
“If you want to reshape high school, start by
changing ninth grade.”
“. . . success or failure in ninth grade is a pivotal
indicator of whether or not a student drops
out.”
Timeline
Year 1 (03-04): Problem-Solving Team and
Process
Year 2 (04-05): Intervention Integrity and STP
Intervention development
Year 3 (05-06): RtI English 9 class
Year 4 (06-07): RtI English 10, CLHS “Check
& Connect”
Year 5 (07-08): See table
Windram & Johnson, 2008
CLHS Three Tier RtI Model: Examples
Level
T IER 4 ?
Class/Intervention
SP ECIAL EDUCAT ION
T IER 3
1:1 or small group interventions
T IER 2
Advisement Correctives (2x term)
(STP)
RtI 9 English class (STP)
RtI 10 English class (STP)
English 9 skinny classes (STP)
P re-Algebra (STP)
P roblem solving interventions
T IERI
CLHS ÒCheck & ConnectÓ (ST P )
Advisement Grade Checks (2x
term)
9th grade common expectations
(planners)
9th grade Link Crew
NCA Goal instruction
Primary Assessment(s)
CBMs
ODRs
MT S
CBMs
ODRs
Grades/Credits
CBM Reading & Writing
CBM Reading & Writing
Grades
CBM Math Applications
CBMs, Grades/Credits,
MAP s
Grades/Credits,
ÒminiÓSEI
Grades/Credits
Grades/Credits
Grades/Credits
SEI
MAZE
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Timeline for decision-making
Start with
DATA
CLHS: Problem Solving
•
•
•
•
Student Assistance Team (Regular Education) = ProblemSolving Team
Problem-Solving Team Members: Assistant Principal,
guidance counselors, school psychologist, school nurse,
police liaison officer, truancy prevention, chemical health,
and mental health.
Weekly, Monday AM
1x month data reviews with small group: AP,
Counselors, School Psych., truancy, RtI Coach
Windram & Johnson, 2008
SCRED Problem-Solving Model
1. Problem
Identification
2. Problem
Analysis
What is the discrepancy between
what is expected and what is occurring?
Why is the problem occurring?
5. Plan
Evaluation
Is the intervention plan effective?
3. Plan
Development
What is the goal?
What is the intervention plan to address this goal
How will progress be monitored?
4. Plan
Implementation
How will implementation integrity be ensured?
Problem-Solving Process at CLHS
Step 1: Student referred to SAT/Problem-Solving Team
via counselors from teachers, parents, etc.
Step 2: Problem Identification data are collected
Step 3: Team prioritizes problem & decides next step:
•
•
•
•
•
Level 1: Grade Level Team or Consultation/follow-up
Level 2: Support Staff Consultation
Level 3: Refer for STP
Level 4: Extended Problem-Solving Team referral
Refer to SST for consideration of SE evaluation
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Who collects the data?
At tendance/grades/credits
Educational Hist ory
Health review
Observation
Interviews: Parent, teacher(s), student
T IES Web Portal:
CBM benchmarks (rdg, wt g, math)
3x year, K-8
NWEA MAPs (rdg, math)
2x year, Fall & Spring
MCAIIs/GRAD
Current CBM
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Counselors
Counselors/School Psych
Counselors/School Nurse
School Psych/Paraprofessional
Counselors, School Psych
Counselors/School Psych/AP
Paraprofessional
Data Reviews
•
RtI students and Alt English and Math: 2x per
term
• Teachers identify students of concern prior to meeting
• Graph review and problem-solving done as a team
• RtI Teachers, Principal, Asst. Principal, 1 or more
counselors, School Psychologist
•
1x month for students in Problem-Solving
• CBM graphs
• Check & Connect data
Windram & Johnson, 2008
RtI English classes
•
•
•
Daily, one 85 minute block, all year
• DOUBLE the instructional time!!!!
• Typical English 9 & 10: 1 block, 1 semester
Reading & writing interventions 30-40 min. daily
Core English 9 & 10 curriculum taught
• Modified pace
• Adapted based on students’ needs
•
•
CBM Reading & Writing data collected on every student
Data reviews 2x per quarter
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Critical features of remedial literacy
instruction at the secondary level
•
•
•
•
•
•
Effective professional development
Effective instructional tools incl. core curriculum and
instructional methodology
System reorganization and support
Formative and summative assessment
Building/classroom climate that fosters high student
engagement
Committee/Team
(e.g., Allain, 2008; Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2004; Diamond, 2004)
Who are the teachers
•
•
•
English Teachers: Enthusiastic, experience
with “at-risk” learners
Intervention Specialists
These were already existing positions
Windram & Johnson, 2008
How Students Are Selected
RtI Eng 9
•
•
•
Spring of 8th grade, teachers introduce class
to students and families
Not required
About 18-24 students per year
Windram & Johnson, 2008
How students are selected
Multiple data sources and indicators of student
engagement:
• CBM scores
• MAPs
• State level reading tests
• Attendance and grades
• Current 8th grade class enrollment
• 8th grade problem-solving status
• Eighth grade teacher input and recommendation
• No specific/formal entrance or exit criteria
Windram & Johnson, 2008
RtI English 9: First quarter
•
Three goals:
1. Build relationships with students
2. Establish regular cycle of CBM data
collection & review. Set up graphs.
3. Apply problem-solving model for
intervention decisions: what and for whom
•
Professional Development
Windram & Johnson, 2008
First quarter supplemental
instruction
Whole group academic interventions for reading
fluency and writing mechanics
• Daily Oral Language (DOL)
• Six Minute Solution (Adams & Brown, 2003)
 Peer tutoring, reading fluency building intervention.
 Same-level pairs, students engage in repeated readings of
1-minute nonfiction passages as their partners note the
number of words read correctly.
Windram & Johnson, 2008
RtI English Classes
•
•
End of first quarter: Identify additional needs at
class, small group, and individual level.
Rest of the year:
• On-going data collection and reviews
• Problem-solving for class, small group, and individual
level
• Adapt supplemental instruction for basic reading and
writing skills based on student need
Windram & Johnson, 2008
PLC Goal: RtI Eng 9
•
•
•
•
Increase class average ORF through a motivation
intervention (i.e. one on one graph reviews).
October 2009: Average was 125.35 wrc
By June 2009: Average of 140.35 wrc
February 2009: Average was 142.23 wrc
Avg growth was 1.13 wrc per week*
* 15 words in 17 weeks. Winter break weeks not included.
SCRED Target Scores
CBM ORF: 170 words read correct
CBM Correct Word Sequences: 64
MAP R RIT: 226
MAP M RIT: 235 – Algebra I
RtI Eng 9 ORF WRC Av g Growth
18
15
Number of students
12
11
11
9
Series 1
7
6
3
3
3
2
0
Fall 0 5
Spring 0 6
Fall 0 6
Spring 0 7
Fall 0 7
Spring 0 8
RtI Eng 9 CWS Average Growth
18
16
14
Number of students
12
10
Series 1
8
6
4
2
0
Fall 0 5
Spring 0 6
Fall 0 6
Spring 0 7
Fall 0 7
Spring 0 8
RtI Eng 9 Achiev ed MAP R Benchmark
18
16
14
Number of Students
12
10
Series 1
8
6
4
2
0
Fall 0 5
Spring 0 6
Fall 0 6
Spring 0 7
Fall 0 7
Spring 0 8
RtI Eng 9 MAP R RIT Growth
12
What happened here?
Amount of RIT Growth
10
8
6
Series 1
4
2
0
8 th
9 th
8 th
9 th
8 th
9 th
Cohort and Grade
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Special Education: SLD
SCRED districts use a SRBI process for SLD
eligibility.
CLHS:
05-06: 1 student
06-07: 1 student
07-08: 0 students
Percent of Students making adequate growth on MAP: Grade 9 English programs
80%
70%
Percent of Students
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
RTI English
Traditional remedial English
programs
2005-06
RTI English
Traditional remedial English
programs
2006-07
Case Study: Jimmy
Case Study: Jimmy - 7th Grade Level
Case Study: Jimmy - 8th Grade Level
Other Tier 2 Programming
•
•
•
•
Interventions with certified staff
Master schedule for interventions
Resource Room support staff progress monitoring
CLHS “Check & Connect” at two levels:
• Correctives (Tier 1 & 2)
• CLHS “Check & Connect” = modified Check & Connect
(http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/check_conn/index.asp;
Christianson, et al.) and Behavior Education Program (Crone et al.,
2004)
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Program Failure Rates
40%
35%
Percentage of Classes Failed
35%
30%
28%
29%
25%
20%
15%
12%
10%
5%
0%
1
2
3
Terms
Windram & Johnson, 2008
4
Program Referral Rates
30
28
Number of Referrals
25
21
20
17
15
13
10
5
0
1
2
3
Terms
Windram & Johnson, 2008
4
What is the influence on
schoolwide outcomes
????
Windram & Johnson, 2008
25
22.7
20
16.5
16.1
15
Percent
14
13.7
14.3
14.1
% Failure Rate Term 1 ALL
% Failure Rate Term 1 9th Grade
11
10.1
9.8
10
5
0
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
School Year
2006-2007
2007-2008
Windram & Johnson, 2008
CLHS School-wide MAZE data
50
45
40
# correct on MAZE
35
30
12
11
10
9
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fall 2 0 0 4
Spring 2 0 0 5
Fall 2 0 0 5
Spring 2 0 0 6
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Chisago Lakes Middle School
•
•
•
•
•
•
816 students
10% special education
15% free/reduced lunch
1% English Language Learning
Seven period day
Daily homeroom - CORE Connect
Windram & Johnson, 2008
CLMS Three Tier RtI Model: Examples
Level
T IER 4 ?
T IER 3
T IER 2
T IERI
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Class/Intervention
SP ECIAL EDUCAT ION
1:1 or small group interventions
Primary Assessment(s)
CBMs
CBMs
ODRs
RtI Communications (gr. 6-8) (STP ) CBM Reading & Writing
RtI Math (gr. 6-8) (ST P )
CBM Math Applications
CLMS ÒCheck & ConnectÓ (STP)
Grades/Credits, DP Rs
CORE Connect
Grades/ODRs
Wall of Fame
Grades/Credits
Good Cat Caught in the Act
SEI
Wildcat Eye on Success
Golden Plunger
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
3.50%
8.30%
88.20%
Rush City High School
Math Lab
1 certified teacher and 1 paraprofessional
28 students (8-11 grade)
-9th grade, did not meet MAP Goal of 235
(needed for Algebra)
- Did not pass BSTs
Al
co
ck
,
Fl
Br
et
an
ch
di
er
,
G
T
ill
ho
ila
re
nd
n
St
,
en
M
eg
ge
an
r,
M
at
Ca
th
ew
rl
so
n,
Ba
Ty
ld
Be
le
w
r
in
hr
,
en
C
ha
dt
se
,
R
hi
an
no
n
O
rr
,
Tu
D
in
rn
a
er
Sc
,
Et
he
ha
ff
er
n
M
,
Jo
or
rd
ro
Sk
w
an
og
,
Ka
m
an
yl
yn
,
Sa
n
m
H
an
ug
th
he
a
s,
Sc
Ke
he
vi
ff
n
er
,
N
Je
ow
nn
ak
a
Jo
,
Tu
hn
ck
so
er
n,
An
Po
dr
or
ew
ke
r,
Re
Ju
w
st
Fl
ey
em
in
,
in
An
g,
dr
Ka
ew
ss
au
nd
ra
Number of RIT points
Growth on MAP
25
20
0
20
11
20
21
20
21
15
14
0 means no c hange from fall to s pring
no red bar, no 0 means no s pring tes t data
16
13
11
7
12
11 11
10
12
10
7
0
9
10
8
8
5
8
6
4
5
0
G rowth from Fall to Win G rowth from Fall to Spring
6
6
3
1
1
-1
-2
-5
-7
-10
Scierka 2008
Scierka 2008
So you want to implement RtI
at the Secondary Level?
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Let kids tell you what to do
and how to do it
Start with school-wide literacy
and/or positive behavior support
Start small
More time!
5-8 years for secondary settings
(
Be Prepared to Disrupt the
Master Schedule!
Student Involvement and
Relationships
Do you have data?
• Screening
• Formative
• Summative
• Reliable & Valid
Schedule data reviews
What is your decision-making
process?
Problem-Solving Process
Is everyone trained?
When do comprehension and
vocabulary instruction happen?
“ . . . reading comprehension depends on
knowledge and vocabulary. It’s an
organic and cumulative process.”
Teaching content?
SIM strategies
Strategic Instruction Model
http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/
Routines to help bring order and
priority to the content
A word about roles for . . .
School Psychologists
Leadership for implementing
RtI framework
A word about roles for . . .
Teachers
Believe we teach ALL kids
A word about roles for . . .
Administrators
Leadership in instruction and change
Administrator is a leader for change
Do it. Do with baby steps or not, but do it.
“If, as a school leader, you wait to improve
[insert whatever you want here] until
you have total buy-in from the school
community, then your school will be the
last to change.”
How not to do it
“Train & Hope”
WAIT for
New
Problem
Expect, But
HOPE for
Implementation
Hire EXPERT
to Train
Practice
REACT to
Problem
Behavior
Select &
ADD
Practice
Staff Buy-In
•
•
•
•
•
Start with a few motivated, charismatic staff
Make in-person connections (emails do not cut it)
Give educators tools for remedial/basic skill instruction for academics and
PBS
Create time for their involvement, e.g., no bus or hallway duty, schedule
team meetings during prep, etc.
For every 1 new task/initiative added, take 2 away.
and above all . . .
Show them the
RtI implementation integrity is
essential
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Schedule data reviews
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Have a process for decisionmaking
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Have a building level RtI “expert”
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Clearly defined roles of ProblemSolving Team members
Windram & Johnson, 2008
Contact Information
Holly Windram, Asst. Spec. Ed. Director, SCRED
[email protected]
651-213-2008
Dave Ertl, Principal, CLHS
[email protected]
651-213-2501
Sara Johnson, Asst. Principal, CLHS
[email protected]
651-213-2503