Why RtI? Why Now? Federal & State Legislation

Transcription

1 Why RtI? Why Now? Implementing and Sustaining Problem- Solving/RtI: Are Florida Schools Ready? Kevin Stockslager, M.A. Devon Minch, M.A. Decia Dixon, M.A. Florida Problem-Solving/RtI Project University of South Florida Federal and State Legislation Florida Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention (PS/RtI) Project Overview Systems Change Overview Florida PS/RtI Project Year 1 Implementation Conclusion Implications for School Psychologists PS/RtI Resources Federal & State Legislation NCLB Accountability-Outcomes not Process Adequate Yearly Progress Disaggregated Data- ALL (with few exceptions) students must achievement benchmarks. This is a REAL change. (Data based decision making) Proven Educational Methods No Child Left Behind puts special emphasis on determining what educational programs and practices have been proven effective through rigorous scientific research Emphasis on Teacher Quality (Effective General Education Curriculum and Instruction) Proficiency vs. Improvement: Proficiency AND Improvement Proposed changes to NCLB and AYP Currently, AYP is based on percentage of students making proficiency in academic areas Proposed addition: States and Schools can use growth rates as equivalent to proficiency to calculate AYP if a student closes the gap (more than a years growth in a years time). Each state will determine level of growth required. 1

2 Federal & State Legislation IDEIA 2004 High expectations Emphasis on general education curriculum Whole-school approaches Scientifically based early reading programs Positive behavioral interventions and supports Early intervening services specifically addresses disproportionality Outcomes: Data based decisions Quality instruction to ALL students Formative assessment (Progress Monitoring) Regulatory Foundation for RtI in Florida New Rule (6A ) Evidence-based interventions Interventions in general education environment Progress Monitoring Plan (PMP) New EBD Rule (6A ) Evidence-based interventions Student s response to intervention determines EBD Bridging the GAP Between Regulation and Implementation Florida Statewide RtI Implementation Plan State-level Infrastructure District-Level Infrastructure Building-Level Infrastructure School Psychologists with Skills to DO RtI AND Facilitate its Implementation Florida DOE Statewide Response to Instruction/ Intervention (RtI) Implementation Plan 2

3 Foreword It is the responsibility of every educator, organization, and parent to actively engage in collaborative efforts to meet Florida s goals. In the unified effort, all schools in Florida should ensure evidence-based practices, instructionally relevant assessments, systematic problem-solving to meet all students needs, data-based decision making, effective professional development, supportive leadership, and meaningful family involvement. These are the foundation principles of a Response to Instruction/ Intervention (RtI) system which provides us the framework to elevate the efficacy of our statewide improvement efforts. Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education June 2008 State Infrastructure State Management Group Todd Clark, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Instruction and Innovation Shan Goff, Executive Director, Office of Early Learning Evan Lefsky, Executive Director, Just Read, Florida! Bambi Lockman, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Exceptional Education & Student Services Jay Pfeiffer, Deputy Commissioner, Accountability Research and Measurement Hue Reynolds, Director of Communications and Public Affairs, Office of Communications and Public Affairs Mary Jane Tappen, Deputy Chancellor for Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Services, Office of the Chancellor Iris Wilson, Deputy Chancellor for Student Achievement, Office of the Chancellor Representatives from State Transformation Team State Infrastructure State Transformation Team Ginger Alberto, Office of Achievement through Language Acquisition, FLDOE George Batsche, Mike Curtis, Clark Dorman Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Project, USF Liz Crawford, Florida Center for Reading Research, FSU Heather Diamond, Bureau of Exceptional Education & Student Services, FLDOE Sandy Dilger, Bureau of School Improvement, FLDOE Don Kincaid, Heather George, Karen Childs PBS Project, USF Mary Little, Response to Intervention s Teaching Learning Connections, UCF Martha Murray, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, FLDOE Rob Schoen, Office of Mathematics and Science, FLDOE Melinda Webster, Just Read, Florida!, FLDOE State Infrastructure State Advisory Group - representatives from: Regional Implementation Teams (district contacts, coaches, etc.) Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) Florida Center for Research Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (FCR-STEM) Early Childhood Association of Florida (ECA) Florida Association of District School Superintendents (FADSS) Florida Association of School Administrators (FASA) Florida Educators Association (FEA) Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) Family Network for Students with Disabilities (FND) Florida Association of Student Services Administrators (FASSA) 3

4 Statewide Leadership in PS/RtI Statewide Technical Assistance in PS/RtI Emphasizes the Need for Districts to Develop District-Wide RtI Plan Identifies Resources for PS/RtI Implementation Statewide Implementation Plan Funding Statewide Implementation Projects Partnerships Technical Assistance Professional Development Federal and State Legislation and School Psychologists Florida PS/RtI Project School Psychologists are well-equipped to provide building level assistance Ongoing Training and Support Facilitating School-Based Team meetings Technical Assistance in PS/RtI Data Collection & Analysis Floridarti.usf.edu Florida PS/RtI Introductory Training Course intro_course/index.html Presenting & Disseminating Student Outcome Data 4

5 Florida PS/RtI Project Purposes of PS/RtI Project: Statewide training in PS/RtI Evaluate the impact of PS/RtI on educator, student, and systemic outcomes in pilot sites implementing the model Collaborate with Implementation Partners Florida Statewide Positive Behavior Support Project RtI-Teaching Learning Connections FCRR Office of Early Learning FLDOE Statewide Training Demonstration Districts/Pilot Schools 3 year training curriculum Problem Solving Process 3-Tiered RtI Model Systems Change Limited technical assistance and support Limited data collection 3 year training curriculum Problem Solving Process 3-Tiered RtI Model Systems Change School, district and Project personnel work collaboratively to implement PS/RtI model Training, technical assistance, and support provided to schools Purpose = program evaluation 5

6 Year 1 Training Curriculum Demonstration Districts Year 1 training focus for schools Day 1 = Historical and legislative pushes toward implementing the PSM/ RtI Day 2 = Problem Identification Day 3 = Problem Analysis Day 4 = Intervention Development & Implementation Day 5 = Program Evaluation/RtI Considerable attention during Year 1 trainings is focused on improving Tier I instruction District Superintendent District Size Clay David L. Owens Medium Miami-Dade Alberto Carvalho Very Large Monroe Randy Acevedo Medium/Small Pasco Heather Fiorentino Large Pinellas Dr. Julie Janssen Very Large Polk Dr. Gail F. McKinzie Large St. Johns Dr. Joseph G. Joyner Medium Walton Carlene H. Anderson Small Services Provided by Project Expectations for Pilot Sites I. Services Provided to Demonstration Sites by Statewide Project Staff Funding for up to two Coaches One Coach for Three Buildings Training, T/A for Coaches & Building Administrators Training, T/A for School-based Teams T/A in use of Technology and Data II. Expectations of Demonstration Districts and Pilot Sites - Collaboration between General Ed, Special Ed, and other projects People with expertise - district and school level teams Funds/Resources - evidenced based instruction and intervention, Professional Development - support and attend Policies and Procedures Technology/Data Systems Making changes when the data indicate 6

7 Coaching model Coaching in Your Schools Seeking to improve instructional practice, and ultimately student learning school districts have adopted coaching as a model, and given it new application. How many of you work in schools where a coach is present? What is their role as a coach? What is coaching? What is coaching? (cont.) Providing Professional Development Collaborating with Staff Improving Instruction & Decision-Making Supporting Staff Developing Capacity Ensuring Treatment Fidelity Coach: a person internal or external to the school/district who provides leadership for implementing a three-tier model --Stollar, Schaeffer, Skelton, Stine, Lateer-Huhn, & Poth (2008) The overarching role of a coach: Build teacher capacity to implement effective instructional practices to improve student learning and performance. On the Road to Accountability NWREL, Summer

8 Florida PS/RtI Coaches The Big Question Primary role and responsibilities Collect and manage data (school, grade and classroom level) Participate on school based PS team Model effective group process using the 4 steps of PS Partner with the school principal to facilitate the change initiatives Ensure treatment fidelity Are Florida Schools ready to implement and sustain a Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention (PS/RtI) Model? Three-Tiered Model of School Supports & the Problem-Solving Process ACADEMIC SYSTEMS BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS What do we know about systems change? Tier 3: Comprehensive & Intensive Students who need individualized interventions. Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Students who need more support in addition to the core curriculum. Tier 1: Core Curriculum All students, including students who require curricular enhancements for acceleration. Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Students who need individualized intervention. Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Students who need more support in addition to school wide positive behavior program. Tier 1: Universal Interventions All students in all settings. Communicate a clear and common vision Planned and pursued in a systematic manner over time One size does NOT fit all Professional development is critical Outcome evaluation is critical 8

9 Why have past initiatives failed? Failure to achieve CONSENSUS School culture is ignored Lack of training and support Lack of feedback to implementers to support continue implementation Unrealistic expectations of initial success Failure to measure and analyze progress Participants not involved in planning Change Model Consensus Infrastructure Implementation Florida Change Model Consensus Building Consensus Belief is shared Vision is agreed upon Implementation requirements understood Infrastructure Development Analyzing and Reconciling Regulations Training/Technical Assistance Model (e.g., Standard Protocol) Tier I and II intervention systems E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan Data Management Technology support Decision-making criteria established Implementation Educators will embrace new ideas when two conditions exist: They understand the NEED for the idea They perceive that they either have the SKILLS to implement the idea OR they have the SUPPORT to develop the skills How the Project Measures Consensus Beliefs Survey Perception of Skills and Practices Satisfaction 9

10 Program Evaluation Methods 1. Progress Monitoring Implementation Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementation (SAPSI) 2. Integrity Measures Tier I and II Critical Components Checklist (CCC) Observations Self-Assessment of Problem-Solving Implementation (SAPSI) Self-report measure Assesses degree to which a school is implementing key components of a PS/RtI model Completed by School Based Leadership Team (SBLT) Adapted from the IL-ASPIRE SAPSI v. 1.6 Center for School Evaluation, Intervention and Training (CSEIT) Loyola University, Chicago SAPSI How it fits with Florida Change Model? Consensus Infrastructure Implementation Tier I and II Critical Components Checklist (CCC) Review of permanent products (documentation) Assess the degree of implementation of PS/RtI model at the Tier 1 & Tier 2 levels Completed by coaches Pilot & Comparison schools 10

11 Year 1 Implementation Year 1 Implementation Questions: To what degree did pilot schools report that consensus changed across the year? To what degree did pilot schools report that infrastructure was put in to place to implement a PS/RtI model? To what degree did pilot schools report that Tier I PS/RtI implementation changed across the year? Change is a 4-6 year process Year 1 goals Consensus Infrastructure Implementation Reinforcing Tier 1 Florida Pilot Schools: Changes in Consensus (Pre-Post) Consensus Building 3: Faculty involvement was one area with biggest improvement 4: Florida Pilot schools have established SBLTs 5: Using data to assess commitment improved significantly 11

12 Qualitative Insight: Consensus Coaches Facilitators Focus on Key Stakeholders Consensus before Staff Trainings Meaningful Discussions Barriers Future Directions Moving from Theory/ Rationale to Application and Implementation Focus on Rapport & Personal Relationships with Teachers Regional Coordinators Strong, Skilled Coaches District Level Commitment Family Feeling Healthy Staff Relationships Weak Coaches Focus on Purposeful & Planned Consensus Building Florida Pilot Schools: Changes in Infrastructure (Pre-Post) Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Development 9: Data are used to evaluate core academic programs more frequently 10: However, not the same results for core behavior programs 11: Increase in CBM data used to identify students needing interventions 15a-b: Special Ed eligibility used RtI for EBD and SLD 17: SBLTs are meeting more regularly 18: SBLTs are evaluating target students RtI 19: However, SBLTs are not involving parents as frequently 12

13 Qualitative Insight: Infrastructure Coaches Facilitators Policies/Procedures: -More Time for PS -More Frequent Meetings Focus of Service Delivery on Tier 1 Innovative Resource Allocation Barriers Future Directions Lack of Data Collection Tools for Certain Domains Regional Coordinators Data Management System Preparing to build up infrastructure Strong, Skilled Coaches Organizational Bureaucracy Conflicting District Policies & Procedures Weak Coaches Focus on Resource Mapping & Identifying Tier I,II, & III Supports Florida Pilot Schools: Changes in Level of Implementation (Pre-Post) Implementation Implementation 21a-b: Clearly defined Tier 1 academic instruction and are working towards defining Tier 1 behavior instruction 22a: Problems are defined using a data-based discrepancy model (discrepancy from benchmarks) 22b-e: Replacement behavior is defined, problem analysis is conducted, and evidencebased interventions and intervention supports are identified 22g-h: Data are used to evaluate students RtI and interventions are changed based on RtI 24-25: SBLTs reported meeting more frequently, and increased meetings with District Leadership Team 26: PS/RtI project is providing more feedback to Pilot schools 13

14 Qualitative Insight: Tier 1 Implementation Facilitators Barriers Future Directions Coaches Planning for Intervention Support Utilizing Progress Monitoring Data Thorough Problem Analysis Building Capacity Sharing the Wealth Regional Coordinators Understanding Core Curriculum Data Collection & Management System Strong, Skilled Coaches Focusing on Tiers II & III Before Tier I Too Many Excuses Unhealthy Staff Relationships Focus on Purposeful and Planned Tier I Activities Demonstration District 1: Changes in Consensus (Pre-Post) Demonstration District 1: Changes in Infrastructure (Pre-Post) Demonstration District 1: Changes in Level of Implementation (Pre-Post) 14

15 What can these data be useful for? How would you use these data in your building? District? How would you ensure accurate reporting? Tier I and II Critical Components Checklist (CCC) Demonstration District 1 Information from 3 baseline years Permanent products (documentation) from Year 1 of Florida PS/RtI Project implementation CCC Demonstration District: Year 1 CCC Demonstration District: Year 2 15

16 CCC Demonstration District: Year 3 CCC Demonstration District: Year 4 Tier I and II Critical Components Checklist (CCC) Based on these graphs, schools have increased implementation in a number of areas 1: Using data to determine effectiveness of core academic programs 3: Use of universal screening to identify students in need of interventions 9: Established a progress monitoring schedule and data are being collected Examining the Self-Report (SAPSI) and Integrity Check (CCC) data What do the SAPSI and CCC data show us about PS/RtI implementation when examined together? What other data sources might make the argument stronger? 16

17 Future Directions Practical Implications What are Florida schools doing well? In what areas can Florida schools improve in implementing PS/RtI? What are the roles of the school psychologist in the implementation of RTI? Systems Change Implementation What can school psychologists do to prepare for and assist with PS/RtI in schools? National Resources to Support PS/RtI Implementation Building and District Implementation Blueprints Current research (evidence-based practices) that supports use of RtI Blueprints to support implementation Monthly RtI Talks Virtual visits to schools implementing RtI Webinars Progress Monitoring Tools to Assess Level of Implementation Florida Resources to Support PS/RtI Implementation Just Read, Florida! Florida Center for Reading Research Florida s Positive Behavior Support Project flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/index.asp RtI: Teaching Learning Connections Office of Early Learning, Florida Department of Education Bureau of School Improvement, Florida Department of Education Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, Florida Department of Education Florida Response to Intervention, Florida Department of Education 17

18 Florida PS/RtI Project Any Questions? Thank you for attending the final part of this 3 part series on PS/RtI Implementation put together by the Florida PS/RtI Project Presenter Contact Information Kevin Stockslager, Doctoral Student University of South Florida kstocksl@mail.usf.edu Devon Minch, Doctoral Student University of South Florida dminch@mail.usf.edu Decia Dixon, Doctoral Student University of South Florida dndixon@mail.usf.edu 18