Scaling up and sustaining an integrated behavior and reading schoolwide model of supports November 18, 2008

Mission Statement To develop support systems and sustained implementation of a data-driven, problem solving model in schools to help students become better readers with social skills necessary for success.

3 Participating Schools 2004 Schools 2005 Schools 2006 Schools 2000 Model Demonstration Schools 2008 Schools Partnering with 38 ISDs 151 School Districts 340 School Buildings ~9,000 Staff Impacting ~130,000 Students

Unit of Change vs. Unit of Support Focus on outcomes at the building level Process, Systems, Student Support at District Level Investing in the Intermediate School Districts/Local School Districts which will serve and support individual schools.

MiBLSi Support Structure State Support ISD/RESA/ DISTRICT Team School School School National Initiatives Connection Funding/ Professional Development Reading/ Discipline Information

Professional Development Schedule

Why Behavior and Reading? Both involve similar processes to achieve desired outcomes Both are necessary for academic success As disruptive student behavior decreases, teaching time increases, allowing all children to learn more

Behavior SupportsAcademic Support Behavior Supports Academic Support Behavior SupportsAcademic Support Multi-Tiered Supports Better Integration of Academic and Behavior Supports

MEAP- 4 th grade Reading Assessment 29 Elementary Schools In Michigan Schoolwide: Over 55% of major discipline referrals from classroom Schoolwide: Under 55% of major discipline referrals from classroom Probability of scoring below 75% proficiency on 4 th grade MEAP (Reading):.78 Probability of scoring above 75% proficiency on 4 th grade MEAP (Reading):.75

Sustainability Application process (establishing commitment) Coaching support linked to ISD Investing in Teams Develop local capacity (regional, district, building levels) Develop local infrastructures and implementation process

Braiding MiBLSi with School Building and District Initiatives Reading First School Improvement Response to Intervention No Child Left Behind Student Support Team

Going to Scale through SPDG 1.Implementation in 500 elementary schools with 80% of schools implementing with fidelity 2.Implementation in 80 middle and high schools with 80% of schools implementing with fidelity 3.Regionalization 1.Technical Assistance Partners (TAPs) assigned to each region 2.Trainers for each region 1.At least 100 trainers statewide 3.Coaching Support 1.At least 250 coaches representing 70% of all ISD and 5 large school districts

Schools 2005 Schools 2006 Schools 2008 Schools

4 th Grade Reading MEAP: Met/Exceed Standards Began Project Implementation Fall 2001 Change MEAP Fall 2005 Plan for long-term implementation by using information for continuous improvement Example project school

Measures BehaviorReading Systems EBS Self-assessment Survey SET Benchmarks of Quality Checklist for Individual Student Systems Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Programs (PET) Process EBS Team Implementation Checklist MiBLSi Reading Support Implementation Checklist Outcomes Discipline Referrals Suspensions DIBELS AIMSWeb MEAP

Increase 8% Decrease 14.6% Focus on Implementing with Fidelity using Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ)/ODR ’06-’07 and ’07-’08

Investing in Coaches: Average Major Discipline Referrals per Day per Month Coach returns from leave One School’s Example

Problem Solving at the Various levels School Wide Level –Purpose: Evaluate the success of each grade level programs supporting all students within the school and to take action to strengthen these programs. Grade Level –Purpose: Evaluate the success of programs supporting all students within the specific grade and class; and to take action to strengthen these programs. Individual Student Level –Purpose: Evaluate the success of programs supporting the student and to take action to strengthen the program.

Process of Inquiry Through this process of inquiry, we are using data to determine if we have the critical information (quantity and quality) to design and evaluate student support programs.

Process of Inquiry 1.Do we have a problem? What are the standards? (goals, benchmarks, etc.) What is the actual performance? Is the actual performance acceptable? 2.Where are the concerns? With who? When? (sometimes/all the time, under specific conditions? What does it look like? 3.Why is this problem occurring? What is currently being done to address the situation? Is the “right thing” being done at the “right time”? What needs to be done differently? 4.Do we have the information needed to develop/enhance student support? Do we need more information? Do we need different information? Do we know how and where to get the information?

Percent of Students at DIBELS Benchmark (Spring) and Major Discipline Referrals per 100 Students