Transcript Name of presentation

A 3-Tiered Approach to Aligning
Prevention and Intervention
Efforts
Stephanie Wood-Garnett
Executive Director
State Improvement Grant
PURPOSE

Develop a common foundation for discussing
evidence-based intervention

Discuss intervention/prevention research

Review research on the Student Support Team
(SST) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS).
OUR GOAL:
LEAVE NO CHILD
BEHIND
Schools must have strong systems focused
on proactive and preventative strategies
designed to meet the needs of a diverse
student population.
 Classrooms and non-classroom settings
need to be places where a range of student
abilities are supported.

~5%
Academics and
Behaviors
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
*Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Targeted Interventions
*Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Red, Yellow, or Green?
Lavar Arrington
Darrell Green
Dexter Manley
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Allen Iverson
Martha Stewart
Oprah Winphrey
Howard Stern
What % of Your Students Are…
Academics
Behavior

% Green Zone

% Green Zone

% Yellow Zone

% Yellow Zone

% Red Zone

% Red Zone
In Your School, What Do You Offer Kids Who
Can’t/Won’t Do What You Need to Improve?
Intervention
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
# of students
involved
Who is
responsible?
What is working?
What isn’t
working?
Reach Me
Teach Me…
Why Your Building
Needs SSTs to Support
School Improvement
Research Shows…
All students regardless
of socioeconomic
status– need
sustained support to
succeed.
James Comer, School
Development Program, Yale
University
Research Shows…

Studies indicate that for African American
and Latino students, positive teacherstudent relationships greatly impact
student achievement (Baker, 1999; Lee,
1999; Slaughter-Defoe & Carlson, 1996).
Research Shows…
“No significant learning occurs
without a significant
relationship”
James Comer
Yale University
Research Shows…

By high school, nearly 40-60% of all
students are chronically disengaged from
school (Klem and Connell, 2004).
Research Shows…

Students who are connected to school are less
likely to:







Use substances
Exhibit emotional distress
Demonstrate deviant/destructive behavior
Experience suicidal thoughts/attempt suicide
Become pregnant
Skip school
Engage in bullying/fighting/vandalism
(Lonczak, Abbot, Hawkins, Kosterman & Catalano, 2002; Samdal,
Nutbeam, Wold & Kannas, 1998; Schapps, 2003; Wilson & Elliott, 2003).

Research Shows…

In order to increase school-student connections:







Implement high standards
Provide academic supports to all students
Implement fair/consistent discipline policies
Create trusting relationships (in-school and school-home)
Support teachers in using new instructional strategies and
implementing classroom management
Foster high parent/family expectations
Ensure that students feel close to at least one adult in the
school building

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent
and School Health &University of MN, 2003)
Every Child a Reader by
Third Grade
A vision or a reality?
What % of your students are
fluent readers (or at least can
read on grade level)?
Proliferation of Reading Research
Research Shows…
 Rate
of reading failure for African
Americans, Hispanics, limited English
speakers, and poor children ranges is
60% (70% in urban areas).
National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development
Research Shows…
 Approximately
50% of children and
adolescents with a history of
substance abuse have reading
problems.
Research Shows…

Almost seven thousand students drop out of
high school every school day (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2006).

Of the children who will eventually drop out of school,
>75% report reading difficulties (National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development)

The students lack the literacy skills to keep up with
the high school curriculum (Kamil, 2003; Snow &
Biancarosa, 2003).
Research Shows…

The bulk of older struggling readers and
writers can read, but cannot understand
what they read (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2006).
2005 NAEP Grade 4 Reading
by Race/Ethnicity, Nation
100%
Percent of Students
13
15
18
40
80%
29
40
29
30
60%
32
40%
59
35
56
Proficient/Advanced
Basic
Below Basic
51
20%
28
25
0%
African
American
Asian
Latino
Native
American
White
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
2005 NAEP Grade 4 Reading
by Family Income, Nation
100%
Percent of Students
15
80%
42
30
60%
35
40%
Proficient/Advanced
Basic
Below Basic
54
20%
23
0%
Poor
Non-Poor
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
2005 NAEP Grade 8 Math
by Race/Ethnicity, Nation
Percent of Students
100%
80%
9
33
13
37
47
38
60%
40%
15
41
42
34
59
50
20%
Proficient/Advanced
Basic
Below Basic
45
21
19
0%
African
American
Asian
Latino
Native
American
White
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
2005 NAEP Grade 8 Math
by Family Income, Nation
100%
Percent of Students
13
38
80%
38
60%
41
40%
20%
Proficient/Advanced
Basic
Below Basic
49
21
0%
Poor
Non-Poor
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
Students who remain in school
but continue to struggle are
often placed in a variety of
educational programs
Special Education Referrals
Academic problems (primarily reading
deficiencies)
 Behavioral problems

Donovan & Cross, 2002; Learning Disabilities Association of America, 1996;
Ysseldyke, Vanderwood & Shriner, 1997)
INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION
IMPROVEMENT ACT (2004)

Reflects heightened intensity that we
must do more before referring
children to special education.
IDEA 2004

In making a determination of eligibility
under Section 614(b)(4)(A) of IDEA:

a child shall not be determined to be a child
with a disability if the determinant factor for
such determination is lack of appropriate
instruction in reading, including in the
essential components of reading instruction
(as defined in Section 1208(3) of ESEA); lack
of instruction in math; or limited English
proficiency. [614(b)(5) of IDEA].
INTERVENTION “IDEA”S
Response to Intervention (RTI)
 Early Intervening Services (EIS)
 Disproportionality

DCPS Referrals by Grade Level: 2004 - 2005
AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS IN
SPECIAL EDUCATION

African American students:
 14.8% of the student population
 20.2% of the students in programs for
students with disabilities
 2.9 times as likely to be labeled mentally
retarded (MR)
 1.9 times as likely to labeled seriously
emotionally disturbed (SED)
 1.3 times as likely to be labeled as having
a learning disability (LD)
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2000)
BOYS OVER-REPRESENTED


1.9 million girls and 3.8
million boys are classified
as special education (U.S.
Department of Education,
Office for Civil Rights,
2000)
Boys dominate the
emotionally disturbed
category:



90% in Kansas City
55% in Milwaukee
76% in Washington, DC
TEAM
Together Everybody Achieves
More…
The Student
Support Team
Process
SSTs: 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING



Began as a special education mandate in the 1975
Education for all Handicapped Children Act which
required the use of multidisciplinary teams in the
referral/placement process (Rosenfeld & Gravois, 1999).
The function and purpose of SSTs changed as schools
and families discovered the benefits of intervening earlier
for students. By 1979 Chalfant and colleagues
developed Teacher Assistance Teams (Safran,1996).
Currently most states require some form of intervention
prior to special education referral:
 69% of states mandate prereferral intervention teams
 86% of states require or recommend pre-referral
intervention teams (Truscott, Cohen, Sams, Sanborn
& Frank, 2005)
IMPACT OF EFFECTIVE SSTS






Reduce referrals to special education
Improve academic achievement
Improve student behavior (including school
attendance)
Improve school-parental communication and
relationships
Improve teacher efficacy
Increase collaboration in schools
PURPOSE AND FUNCTION
OF SSTS




Support students placed
at risk for school failure
Support school personnel
with difficult to teach
students
Support families in
meeting their children’s
needs at school and at
home
Support schools in
meeting school
improvement objectives
PURPOSE AND FUNCTION
OF SSTS
Filter referrals for bias in
referral/placement decisions based on
factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic class (Harry & Anderson, 1994)
 Many studies have found indicators of
teacher “arbitrariness” in referrals (Fuchs,
1991)

PURPOSE AND FUNCTION
OF SSTS
SST is not to “operate as a special
education eligibility or placement
committee” (NABSE and ILIAD Project,
2002, p. 19).
 SST is NOT meant to deny services to
students who may actually have a
disability.
 SSTs should NOT assume the difficulty
lies solely within the child.

Research Shows…
80% of teachers polled report they feel illequipped to teach diverse populations
(Futrell, Gomez, and Bedden, 2003).
 70% of teachers report they are not wellprepared to teach English Language
Learners (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2004)

Research Shows…
Teacher beliefs are extremely important;
their beliefs influence their expectations
and judgments about students’ abilities,
effort, and progress in school (Obiakor,
1999).
SST PROCEDURES
Individual interventions
 Group interventions
 Meeting occurrence (frequency/duration)
 Variations in implementation

Elementary school
 Middle/Junior High school
 High school

SST MEMBERSHIP
Roles
of Members
Instructional model vs. behavioral model
Variety of staff roles involved in the SST
Types
of membership
Involuntary
Voluntary
Paid
Elected
Service
period
All year
Rotations (e.g. monthly or quarterly)
Bi-annual
SST MEMBERSHIP

Effectiveness of model based on
membership and/or needs of the school
General educators only
 Grade level teams
 Departmental teams
 Parental involvement on teams
 Student involvement on teams
 Agency/community involvement on teams
(e.g. LSRT)

INEFFECTIVE TEAM
PROCEDURES










Waste time (disorganized/inconclusive)
Members feel isolated
Individuals dominate
Include team members who do not value the work
Do not value other members’ ideas
No clear roles for team members
Poor process
Over-emphasize process to the exclusion of content
Focus on irrelevant information
Allow hidden agendas and politics to take
precedence
Preskill & Torres (1999). Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in
Organizations, p. 33.
SST PROCEDURES






Use data in all discussions
Establish positive student goals
Align interventions with the desired results
Review student progress regularly
Set measurable outcomes
Include evaluation measures
Where’s the Data?!!!

Absence of direct measures of learning
observation, test scores, curriculumbased assessment results. Leads to overreliance on teacher opinions an team
consensus (Safran, 1996).
School Improvement Planning
– PBS School-wide
 Secondary/Tertiary- SST Process
 Primary
BEHAVIOR
CONTENT
SSTs
COMMUNITY
FAMILY
CONTACT INFORMATION
Stephanie Wood-Garnett
 Executive Director, State Improvement
Grant
 District of Columbia Public Schools
 www.dcsig.org
 [email protected]
 202-442-5539
