Wisconsin Evaluation 10-9-13

Background of Wisconsin RtI Center 2010 Academic and Behavior Focused Funded by Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Data Collected

Data Questions, Reporting… How many/which schools have been trained? If we train schools, do they implement what we trained them in? Do schools implement with fidelity? Are they sustaining implementation? Do students benefit? Do all students benefit?

PBIS/Behavior data Training/networking Implementation Data ODR TIC, SAS, SET, BoQ, BAT, MATT ODR Recognition applications PBIS Eval Access state reported suspension data

Academic Data Training/Networking attendance School-wide Implementation Review (SIR) All Staff SIR Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE)

Academic Training Implementation Full Implementation Outcomes Behavior Fidelity

Internal Coaching, training, behavioral expertise External Political support, funding, policy, visibility

Internal Use All data is housed in central, online,database with WI RtI Center Standard reports that staff can use for Regional, District, School-level supports Shared with CESAs every 2 months RtI Center meetings every 2 months. Use data to drive decisions/prioritize at Center meetings. Shared regionally with coaches quarterly

Sharing Data Quarterly State Leadership Team Annual Report Newsletter Share data with them Get input on work Take the information back to their representative organizations (state dept, family groups, universities, administrator associations, etc) Annual Report Initially shared with SLT each October, published on our website Newsletter Quarterly newsletter highlights aspects of this data

Examples of our Data Use/Presentation

We Use trainings to show evidence that schools are working to implement the mlss – these numbers represent teams, not individuals This shows continued growth in participation and that school are attending mutiple trainings showing a deeper level of comittment WE are adding to the training menu, the Universal Mathematics Review – being offered statewide next year Also, we are working to create supports in the area of Intervening Effecitvely – establishing an effective systemwide intervening process IN addition, we are working this year (one of our strategic goals) to determine an integrated recocmmended scope and sequence of trainings including CRP and behavior

As you recall, and just as a reminder, the Schoolwide Implementation Review is a way for schools to a self assess their current level of implementation of RtI components. It gives them one piece of information to help action plan and measure their efforts It gives us some data to show to what degree our schools working to implement the framework of RtI. This graphs shows the continued growth of the use of the SIR by school leadership teams. Reading is in blue, math is in red

Looking at all the SIRs completed, we can get an idea a statewide picture of implementation This shows us that schools feel further along in implementation in READING vs MATH (more schools at infrastructure and Initial Implementation in READING, while, more of them place themselves at at the beginning stages of implementation for math – see more at purpose

RedoAdd in overall averages.

This shows the growth in implementation (as reported by schools themselves). There are 202 school teams that completed the SIR both in 2011-12 and again in 2012-13 (as we intend for the SIR to be an annual tool to assess and plan from). The data from those 202 – good news. We see growth in not only the overall scores but in each subscale score as well. But even with that growth, we still see most school just at infrastruture and initial implementation

PBIS Implementation as of June 30, 2013 Implementing Fidelity

One expectation and goal for the state is equitable access across the state…

50.6% 26.3% Number of districts don’t align with DPI numbers as there are parochials, etc. that have been trained in PBIS, so we add a district number to them. Approximately 75% of the 76-100% are 5 or fewer schools. 25% have more than 6 school. 1 school = 33 = 26% 2-5 schools = 62 = 49% 6-9 schools = 17 = 13% 10+ = 13 = 10%

Sustaining…

Cumulative Yearly Suspension Rate for All Schools, Schools Not at Fidelity, and Schools at Fidelity from 2010-12

Change in Race-Specific Suspension Rates from 2010-12

Future Directions More outcome data Look at data by cohorts more Disproportionality Behavior Academic Achievement Graduation Attendance, etc. Look at data by cohorts more Improving our database to better track ODR data Look at outcome data over time for schools implementing an integrated MTSS for academics and behavior