RTI and Behavior Process Improvement Group Facilitators: Bill Trant, Susan Cole, & Leigh Gates

Agenda  Welcome, Introductions & Agenda Review  Description of the Current Process  Presentation of the Data  What Works? Small Group Discussion & Whole Group Share  What Needs to Work Better? Small Group Discussion & Whole Group Share  Consolidate and Prioritize  Next Steps

RTI Process for Behavior Select the behavior Define the behavior Pinpoint priority replacement behavior Collect Data Obtain baseline and set a goal Intervene and progress monitor Evaluate effectiveness of intervention through data collection

Three Tiered Model of Behavioral Supports Tier III Intensive, Individualized Interventions Tier II First Line Interventions Tier I Preventative Classroom Management

Goal Setting 75%  Non-compliance, motor disruption, work completion, verbal disruption 100%  NHCS board policy for aggressive behaviors (verbal and physical), bullying, threatening, cursing.

Progress Monitoring 100% goal  Daily 75% goal  5x in 2 weeks or daily? Utilize same decision making strategies as used for academic concerns. Remember:  (-)Behavior + (+)Academics = Intervention  (-)Behavior + (-) Academics = Possible Entitlement

NHCS Behavior Criteria 1) Performance well below peers as evidenced by performance below goals as set below:  100%: Harmful to self or others (i.e. Assault & Battery) OR SIGNIFICANT disruption of learning environment (i.e. Cursing & Tantrums)  75%: Noncompliance, lack of work completion, time off task

NHCS Behavior Criteria 2) Rate of growth below peers  Trend line will not intersect with aim line in 18 weeks or less. 3) Intensity and nature of instruction resemble specially designed instruction. ***ALL 3 CRITERIA MUST BE MET!

Life after the Waiver: Behavior Introduction of Tier IV Overlay of RTI Process and State Requirements Primary Categories Impacted:  Other Health Impaired (OHI)  Serious Emotional Disability (SED)  Intellectually Disabled-Mild (ID-MI)

Tier IV Analyze Tier III and determine if RTI criteria have been met Obtain parental consent for evaluation Conduct additional required screenings and evaluations by category

Categorical Requirements OHI  Social and Developmental History  Medical Evaluation  Documentation of limited vitality or limited alertness, including heightened alertness to environmental stimuli that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment (RTI results)

Categorical Requirements Serious Emotional Disability  Social and Developmental History  Communication Evaluation  Behavior/Emotional Evaluation  Adaptive Behavior Evaluation  Psychological Evaluation  Documentation of Impairment

THE DISTRICT-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE RTI from a system perspective A break down of data in terms of Behavior Intervention A break down of Behavior Intervention in terms of Tiers

Number of Students Entitled = 697

# and % of Behavior Entitlements State SED Average= 4% % At: 0 Ag: 0 2 B: % At: 3 Ag: 1 2 B: % At: 3 Ag: 1 2 B: % At: 1 Ag: 3 2 B: % At: 7 Ag: 9 2 B: % At: 7 Ag: 8 2 B: 6 KEY: At= Entitled in Attention; Ag: Entitled in Aggression; 2 B= Entitled in 2 Behaviors

K-5 Students Receiving Interventions in Behavior ,243* (29% ADM) in RTI 1,254 (39%) intervention info. 338** (27%) cases = behavior 285* (84%) tier information Based on 25 schools **Based on 25 sch. w/9 having <50% of data 43% 39% 18% Students

K-5 Students Receiving Interventions in Behavior ,481* (30% ADM) in RTI 1,676 (48%) intervention info. 619** (37%) cases = behavior 519* (84%) tier information Based on 25 schools **Based on 25 sch. w/4 having <50% of data 37% 46% 17% Students

6-8 Students Receiving Interventions in Behavior * (8% ADM) in RTI 196 (47%) intervention info. 23** (12%) cases = behavior 23* (100%) tier information * Based on 7 schools **Based on 7 sch. w/2 having <50% of data 74% 26% 0% Students

6-8 Students Receiving Interventions in Behavior * (17% ADM) in RTI 400 (44%) intervention info. 70** (18%) cases = behavior 62* (89%) tier information * Based on 7 schools **Based on 5 sch. w/3 having <50% of data 23% 58% 19% Students

THE STATE-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE The Continuous Improvement Performance Plan Indicator 4b Indicators 9 and 10

Indicator 4b Significant Discrepancy of > 10 Day Suspensions by Race/Ethnicity Due to Data  1,073 total students suspended  78 (7.3%) students with IEPs  More than 2 times discrepant in the number of suspensions by race/ethnicity (African American)

Indicator 9 & 10 Disproportionate Representation by Race/Ethnicity in Disability Categories That is a Result of Inappropriate Identification Data  2 categories: ID-MI (82/133) and SED (63/105).  ID-MI risk ratio: 6.2% NHCS > 5.36% State  SED risk ratio: 6% NHCS > 5% State  Disproportionate in the identification of African American students in these two categories

Small Group Discussion Looking at the entire system (Tiers 1-4), what is working with our current RTI process for behavior?

Whole Group Share What works?

Small Group Discussion Looking at our entire system (Tiers 1-4), what needs to work better with our current RTI process for behavior?

Whole Group Share What needs to work better?

Consolidate and Prioritize What are the general themes and how do we rank them?

Next Steps? What do we need to do to make our task easier/clearer?