RtI Initiative at Ingham ISD MASP Annual Conference October 17, 2011 Emily Sportsman, PhD RtI Implementation Consultant Jeanne Tomlinson, MA RtI Supervisor

Background: Ingham ISD RtI Initiative A new approach was needed; we were spending a lot and it wasn’t working.  25+ years of special education legislation and funding  Resulted in poor student outcomes  Failed to demonstrate cost effectiveness  Failed to validate aligning instruction to SE diagnostic classification In August 2009, ALL districts in our service area decided to pool their stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to implement RtI.  12 local districts  4 rural, 2 urban, 6 suburban, +1 public school academy

ARRA OPPORTUNITY  Collective agreement  Consolidation of funds  Consolidation of effort  Standardized the practice  Customized the implementation  Intense and focused trainings across all districts  Created common goals  Narrowed our focus  Increase our intensity  Districts purchased RTI coaches  ISD trained coaches

Three-Tiered Model of School Supports & the Problem-solving Process ACADEMIC SYSTEMS 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. BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS 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.

IISD-wide RtI Initiative: Long Term Goals  Create and support district-level and building- based practices that improve outcomes for all students and  Reduce the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their general education peers.

Key Resources in establishing our approach to RtI:  Florida model for RtI implementation  The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)  Response to Intervention Blueprints for Implementation …from these resources we developed an Action Plan with 52 indicators to track progress in these areas:  Consensus  Infrastructure  Implementation It’s hard to improve something if you’re not measuring it

Indicators and Evidence Measuring Progress Toward an RtI Model Consensus Infrastructure Implementation Consensus InfrastructureImplementation SMART Goal

RtI Framework: Eight essential components  Universal screening  Progress Monitoring  Data-based decision making  Shared Leadership  Research-based Instruction and Interventions  Problem Solving  Tiered Systems  Family and Student Involvement 8

Infrastructure Development: Structures and Processes to Support RtI  Shared Leadership  Ingham ISD Leadership Team (aka RtI Implementation Team)  Local District Leadership Teams (DLT)  School-Based Leadership Teams (SBLT)  Grade-level teams  RtI Coaches  Selected by districts to support each building  Meet monthly at ISD, embedded in SBLTs

Students Building Staff Building Leadership Team Coaches Local District Leadership Team Ingham ISD Improved student outcomes Provides effective practices to support students Provides guidance and manages implementation Provides guidance and support to Building Leadership Teams and principals Provides visibility, training and technical support for coaches and BLTs Cascading Structures of Support Provides guidance, visibility, and political support Coaches, District Teams, and Building Teams Multiple schools w/in local district and coaches Building Leadership Teams and Principals All staff All students

Two reconfigured units Because RtI profoundly impacts our operational supports and instructional programs/services, our ISD restructured:  Student Instructional Services  Implementation of core curriculum, assessment and instruction  Roberta Perconti, Director  Student Support Services  Support to the core curriculum, assessment and instruction, including special education programs and services  Andrew Rable, Director

Professional Development  Literacy Approximately 5000 staff trained  Positive Behavior Intervention Support Approximately 1000 staff trained  Leadership Approximately 500 staff trained in RtI/MiBLSi Thanks to the Michigan Behavior Learnng Support Initiative (MiBLSi), Anita Archer, George Batsche, and Kevin Feldman

RtI Accomplishments in  Expanded Literacy Focus and Began Focus on Math  Trained MS and HS teams on vocabulary and student engagement ( Dr. Kevin Feldman)  George Batsche, training for leadership teams and special education  Anita Archer, 4 days of literacy trainings  Math RtI Training  Introduced Early Warning Systems  Betterghighschools.org  Targeted Positive Behavior Intervention Supports  60 building teams completed PBIS training (3 days) in and will collect student behavior data in  Developed capacity to implement SWIS throughout the county

RtI Accomplishments in  Engaged in continued RtI/MiBLSi training (7 days of training)  Cohort 5 – 2 buildings  Cohort 6 – 10 buildings  Cohort 7 – 59 buildings  Trained staff and implemented revised Learning Disability eligibility guidelines  Supported Adoption of Core Reading Program  Trained and Supported RtI Coaches with monthly training and collaboration  Supported Universal Screening Systems county-wide

Initiated Family and Community Involvement Work 

Program Evaluation Data Sources  Process Data: Consensus, Infrastructure and Implementation of RtI  Building Self-Assessment (SAPSI from Florida MTSS)  Belief Survey (Florida MTSS)  Perceptions of Skills and Practices (Florida MTSS)  Planning and Evaluation Tool for Reading (MiBLSi)  PD Attendance  Coach Logs  District Scorecard  PBIS Surveys (MiBLSi)  Self Assessment Survey  Team Implementation Checklist  Benchmarks of Quality  Student Outcome Data  AIMSweb, DIBELS 6 th ed., DIBELS Next  School-wide Information System (SWIS)  MEAP and MME  Graduation and Drop-out Rates  Early Warning Signs (betterhighschools.org)  Attendance  Credits Earned  Course Failures

Data Celebrations  Building Self-Assessment (Pre to Post)

Belief Survey: Example District Factor One

Universal Screening Data

Grade 3 Oral Reading Fluency Winter 2010 – Spring 2010 Fall 2010 – Spring 2011

Focus on Literacy Research-Based Core Reading Program  Research Based Core Reading Program Review  IISD negotiated consortium pricing for Reading Street  67% of local districts adopted a research based core reading program  LEAs purchased Reading Street  LEAs purchased Reading Street

Oral Reading Fluency Grade 1 Percentage of Students at Benchmark

Impact of Core Reading Program Percentage of Students at Benchmark

PD Sustaining and Deeping Our Work Continued Focus  Leadership:  Principal’s Academy  Literacy  Anita Archer  Kevin Feldman  Core Reading  Positive Behavior  George Sugai  Intervention Support  Literacy  RtI/MiBLSi trainings Emerging Areas  Math Data Collection, instruction and intervention  Early Warning Signs (EWS) -Continuing work with High Schools -Adding Middle Schools  Family/Community Involvement  Fidelity  Tier 2 and Tier 3

Sustainability  Reconceptualizing RtI coach role as skill-set to support and lead RtI implementation  Identified in every district  District Leadership Team will continue to support the RtI initiative.  Implementation Science  Liaison Structure  School Based Leadership Teams will continue to deepen and sustain RtI implementation

Deep Drivers  RtI Coach Skill Set  Data based decision making using problem solving framework  Use of research based instruction, intervention and assessment  Family/community involvement  Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring  Focus on Early Warning Signs  Leadership, Leadership, Leadership!!!!

Questions/Comments? Or contact us at: