RtI Implementation in a Small School District in Northern Wisconsin Linda Zeman School District of Chetek

Who am I? School Psychologist Director of Special Education District Assessment Coordinator ELL Coordinator All other duties as assigned....

Chetek Extensive data High Accountability Declining Enrollment More than 40% Free and Reduced Rate Previously High Special Education Prevalence Rate –Poor academic performance –Limited growth

Paradigm Shift High quality instruction and on-going screenings Targeted instructional interventions based on data documented student needs Strong focus on data

Basic Assumptions All students can learn If they are not making progress, then we have not found the right method yet Decisions are best made with data The most affective way to improve an area of weakness is to increase the intensity, time and focus in this area. Use limited resources where we can have the most impact If data does not support strong universal instruction, tier 2 and 3 are not appropriate ALL students would benefit from this model

In God we trust. Everyone else bring your data.

A Different Mode of Transportation Response to Intervention/Response to Instruction If done right, it should impact all educational services.

Strong Universal Instruction High Quality Instruction Equal Opportunity to Learn Co-Teaching Unit Design/Curriculum Work Staff Development Universal Screening High Expectations for Students

Major Paradigm Shift The most important “intervention” may be presuming that the student is competent to learn age-appropriate general education content in the general education classroom.

Targeted and Focused Instruction Standard Protocol Targeted Instruction Academic and Honors Resource Academic Tutoring Center/Unscheduled Resource Read 180 Progress Monitoring

Intensive and Individualized Individually Defined 1-on-1 Instruction Alternative Diploma Options

Ultimate Goal Improved learning for ALL students!

A New Mode of Transportation The Dead Horse Reviving the dead horse was attempted with no success We have officially dismounted!

What does it look like at Chetek Elementary

The Beginning-Elementary Proposal –Not satisfied with current resources for students –Strong use of growth data in reading PK-3 –Data documents strong universal reading instruction Summer Planning and Training –Resource mapping –Evidence base identified –Training for targeted instruction teachers –Use of data to identify & group students Criteria defined

The Basic Structure-Elementary Problem Solving-Monthly team meetings looking at growth data and interventions for individual students Late fall and early spring grade level assessment summits (K-12) Tier 2 is 30 minute targeted instruction at least 4 days a week in a small group –Available to all students –Instructors include teachers, Title I staff, reading specialist, and very well trained para-educators

The Basic Structure-Elementary (continued) Tier 3 is defined by student need in consideration of available resources –Double shots –Individual instruction in addition to tier 2 instruction

The Basic Structure-Elementary (continued) Universal screening data: –MAPs –Literacy profile assessments (district created) –Math profile assessments (district created) –On demand writing prompts (district created)

The Basics-Elementary (Continued) On going progress monitoring include: –Oral reading fluency –Mazes –Nonsense word fluency –Math computation prompts Most tier 2 students are bi-weekly

Results-Elementary Significantly less special education referrals and lowered rate of identification of special education based on referrals Increased growth rates on MAPs testing for students served Almost half of students identified and receiving targeted instruction starting in the fall of the year are able to meet benchmarks by the spring Younger students are more likely to show adequate growth than older students

Social Competency Results 75% of students receiving social competence instruction in 06 – 07 no longer needed in following school year Students in social competence in 06 – 07 had an average of 4.3 discipline referrals One year later, they have an average of 2.7 discipline referrals (including one student with 15)

What does it look like at Chetek High School

The Beginning-High School New Principal –Not satisfied with student performance data – Very data focused! Staff Wanted Change –Lots of team work –Buy in by staff –Higher expectations for students and staff –Building goal developed to be the highest performing rural school district in Wisconsin

The Basic Structure-High School Problem Solving-Student Achievement Teams are built into the schedule 60 minutes a day 5 days a week Tier 2 –Read 180 (60 minutes 5 days a week) –Resource Schedule (60 minutes 5 days a week) Honors-increased freedoms Academic-increased support and instruction –Hope to add Math

English Academic Resource Math Academic Resource Soc. Stud. Academic Resource Science Academic Resource Encore Academic Resource Honors Resource Students that are failing any class will be assigned to the specific Academic Resource and then return to the Honors Resource when they are passing. High School Tier 2

The Basic Structure-High School (continued) Tier 3 is defined by student need in consideration of available resources. –Individual instruction –Credit recovery –Alternative diploma options (HSED, alternative school, etc...) Universal screening data: –MAPs (grade 9 only) –Grades –On demand writing prompts (district created)

The Basic Structure-High School (continued) On going progress monitoring include: –Grades –Missing Assignments –Read 180 – assessments scores

Results-High School 170 F’s scored at the end of the second trimester Reduced to 90 F’s scored at the end of the second trimester We expect that number to be even lower at the end of second trimester

What does it look like at Chetek Special Education

The Beginning-Special Education The Data –Special education students scored significantly below their non-handicapped peers –Special education students scored significantly below the state average for students with disabilities –We could identify when a student was placed in special education based on performance data Consensus to raised Expectations Progress monitoring data is used to develop IEPs, report progress, and to drive instruction

The Basic Structure-Special Education Universal level –Equal opportunity to learn –High expectations –Co-teaching Only special education specific classes are based on alternative grade band standards 8 students in pull out classes 133 in all general classes Tier 2 –Targeted Instruction –Unscheduled Resource/Academic Tutoring Center

The Basic Structure-Special Education (continued) Tier 3 Totally Individualized –Individual planning and instruction –Could include alternative placement considerations Problems –IEP teams don’t meet frequently enough to be problem solving teams –More frequent IEP reviews to reflect needs based on data

Results-Special Education Less special education referrals –Incident rate went down for the first time in Chetek history (We went from 17.57% to 14.36% incident rate that is almost a 13% decline in special education identification rate in one year) –Only grade levels provided RtI were affected

Results-Special Education (continued) Higher academic expectations with a higher success rate. –Less failed classes –More teacher requests for co-teacher than available staff Improved growth on MAPS from fall to spring –last years data Positive feedback –Students-Parents-Teachers

“One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.” -Andre Gide

IF YOU ARE RIDING A HORSE AND THE HORSE DIES... One last thought

Linda Zeman

Any questions?