FloridaRtI.usf.edu Florida’s Project A collaborative project between the Florida Department of Education and the University of South Florida

Project Staff Project Co-Directors George Batsche and Michael Curtis University of South Florida Project Leader Clark Dorman Regional Coordinators /Trainers Beth Hardcastle - North Denise Bishop - Central Kelly Justice - South

Web Address

Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems 5-10% 10-15% Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment-based High Intensity Of longer duration Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment-based Intense, durable procedures Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response 75-85% Universal Interventions All students Preventive, proactive Universal Interventions All settings, all students Preventive, proactive A School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Tiers of Problem Solving I II III Problem Identification Problem Analysis Intervention Design Response to Intervention Why is it occurring?

35 % Benchmark 75 % = Peer Group= Aim Line BASELINEBASELINE

Problem Identification Benchmark Level75% Current Level20% Peer Level35% Benchmark Gap75/20=3.7X Peer Gap35/20=1.7X Peer/Benchmark Gap75/35=2+X UNIVERSAL INTERVENTION FIRST

School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Grade Level Social Skill Training 35 % 50 % 55 % 60 % Benchmark 75 % = Peer Group = Target Student = Aim Line = Trend Line 

PS/RtI Integrates Efforts PS / RtI

PS/RtI Project Partners FCRR Positive Behavior Support Early Intervention DOE Projects

State Project: Critical Components 1. Statewide Training in Problem-Solving/RtI 2. Focused Training in Demonstration Districts and Pilot Schools 3. Statewide Evaluation Plan 4. Project Linkage with Existing State Initiatives

Project Communication Web Site  Project Update, Training Materials Quarterly Newsletter List-serves Coordination with DOE Communication Venues Coordination with State Level Associations

Statewide PS/RtI Training Three-Year Initial Training Agenda Year One-Training  5 Days Across Year  Conducted in Multiple Sites within Regions  Target Audience is School-Based Teams  Evaluation of Skill Components and Beliefs

Statewide PS/RtI Training General components  Problem Solving Process  Data-Based Decision Making  Tiered System of Intervention Delivery  Progress Monitoring  Criteria for Intervention Effectiveness

Statewide PS/RtI Training 4 sites X 3 Regions Begin Fall annual curriculum  Three year sequence  Initial training focused on Tier One

Statewide Technical Assistance Year One- Technical Assistance  Quarterly Meetings within region  Content based on participant needs assessment  Group format but focused on specific topics  Supported by web-based technical assistance

Mini-Grant Process Regional Mini-Grant Application Meetings held in Spring, 2007 in each of three regions April deadline for application Scoring rubric used to evaluate applications Multi-stage process to select Demonstration Districts

Example of Scoring Rubric 2. District, Pilot, & Comparison School Data Evaluation Scoring - 30 points* Detailed and Current Demographic Data for  District  Pilot Schools  Comparisons Schools *District - 10 *Mean across pilot schools - 15 *Mean across comparison pilot schools - 5

Mini-Grant Application Evaluation Total Points were an important consideration in district selection. -also important to have a diversity of students, schools, and districts Additional factors considered: Size of districts (small, medium, large) Geographic location Student population demographics Inclusion of D/F schools

Demonstration Districts and Pilot Schools Eight Diverse Districts in Three Regions  Very Large (362,000 students)  Small (6,900 students) 38 Pilot Schools Comparison Schools in same districts District Leadership Team School Leadership Team School-based Coach (1 FTE/3 Schools)

Demonstration Districts

Project Commitment to Demonstration Districts Support dedicated full-time Problem Solving / Response to Intervention Coach for three pilot schools Assist schools in developing effective Problem Solving Teams  Training  Technical Assistance Provide guidance in creating tiered systems of student support Support data management and analysis Evaluate the impact of Ps/RtI Model

Evaluation Plan Assess Impact of Model  Educator/parent beliefs, satisfaction  Relationship of integrity of implementation to outcomes  Building-level factors Referrals, Placements, Behavior, Disproportionality  Student Outcomes Achievement, Behavior

Demonstration Sites Expectations of Demonstration Districts and Pilot Sites  Collaboration between General Ed, Special Ed, and other projects  People with expertise - district and school level teams  Funds/Resources - evidenced based instruction and intervention  Professional Development  Policies and Procedures  Technology/Data Systems  Making changes when the data indicate

Demonstration Sites: Getting Started Regional Administrative Orientation Meetings held in May/June, 2007 Regional Coordinators Complete “Coaching Training” June, 2007 Training for Coaches July 9 – 13, 2007 School-Based Year One Training To Begin in Fall, 2007

Systems change Systemic change is a cyclical process in which the impact of change on all parts of the whole and their relationships to one another are taken into consideration. In the contexts of schools, it is not so much a detailed prescription for improving education as a philosophy advocating reflecting, rethinking, and restructuring. (Educational Systemic Change Tools, 2007)

What do we know about systems change? Communicate a clear and common vision Planned and pursued in a systematic manner over time One size does NOT fit all Professional development is critical Outcome evaluation is NON-NEGOTIABLE!

Why have past initiatives failed? Failure to achieve CONSENSUS School culture is ignored Purpose unclear Lack of ongoing communication Unrealistic expectations of initial success Failure to measure and analyze progress Participants not involved in planning…

Florida Change Model Consensus Infrastructure Implementation

Consensus Building Educators will embrace new ideas when two conditions exist:  They understand the NEED for the idea  They perceive that they either have the SKILLS to implement the idea OR they have the SUPPORT to develop the skills

How can we work smarter? Explain “the why” Provide a clear vision Explain the scope and sequence Start listening Provide incentives

District-Level

Support of District Leadership Requires you to: Possess knowledge of PS/RtI Create a climate of change Ensure necessary professional development Manage resources Provide accountability

Role of District Leaders Give “permission” for model Provide a vision for outcome-based service delivery Reinforce effective practices Expect accountability Provide tangible support for effort  Training  Coaching  Technology  Policies

Scaling Up How much can you support? Start at elementary level (K-3) for comprehensive program Consider implementing data-based decision making at other levels Expand full range of the model slowly to other levels

Challenges for Leadership General Education/Special Education Partnership Policies and Procedures  Implications for Due Process and Procedural Safeguards Professional Development Modeling Data-Based Decision Making Communication!!!!!  School Boards  Teachers  Students  Parents

General Education/Special Education: A Necessary Partnership The “Players”  Curriculum and Instruction  Reading  Special Education  Student Services  Instructional Technology  Parent Representation

General Education/Special Education: A Necessary Partnership The “Goals”  Assess effectiveness of Tier 1  Assess types of referrals/requests for assistance  Determine levels of disproportionality  Determine focus, type and effectiveness of Tier 2 services  Determine focus of “Early Intervening Services”  Commit to data-based decision making  Evaluate programs and interventions in terms of student outcome data

Leadership Level: Policies and Procedures Consistent implementation across settings - a requirement to meet procedural safeguards test Policies Needed:  How data-based decision making will be applied in general and special education  Decision-rules for interpretation of data in both general and special education  Application of RtI practices to LD eligibility and other regulatory applications  Role of parents in the process  Criteria for “independent evaluations” in the new model

Leadership Level: Policies and Procedures Procedures Needed:  Problem-solving steps and definitions for each step  Decision-rules for determining response to intervention  Data and decision-rules necessary for LD eligibility  Acceptable methods of data collection  Methods of documentation  Intervention Support  Parent involvement, parent permission for evaluation

Communication with… School Boards  Improves student performance  Reduces disproportionality  Improves AYP Teachers  How data-based decision-making improves outcomes, focuses instruction, improves efficiency.  Support for interventions

Communication with… Parents  Purpose of Problem-Solving/RtI  Impact on student outcomes  Due Process issues  Early Intervention  Progress Monitoring  Partnership Students  Goal setting and progress monitoring  Intervention fidelity

Professional Development Understand what RtI is, the need for it, and the support required Understand the research regarding student outcomes Know how to interpret student data, all three tiers, in terms of RtI and implications for interventions Improve skills in data collection  Progress Monitoring Data  Observation Data Know sources of evidence-based interventions Know criteria for effective intervention support Data coaches and facilitators

Building-Level

Pilot School Training Three-Year Initial Training Agenda Year One-Training  5 Days Across Year  Conducted in Pilot Schools within Regions  Target Audience is School-Based Teams  School support by Coaches and Regional Coordinators

Pilot School Technical Assistance Year One- Technical Assistance  Site Based  Monthly Coaches Support Meetings  Quarterly Administrative Support Meetings  Coordination with District Leadership Team

Role of the Principal Sets vision for problem-solving process Supports development of expectations Responsible for allocation of resources Facilitates priority setting Ensures follow-up Supports program evaluation Monitors staff support/climate

The Principal: Content Knowledge Understanding of:  Need for universal, supplemental and intensive instructional strategies and interventions  Components of a successful PDP  Need for and skills in data-based decision-making and the need to share outcome data frequently  Need to publicly recognize the relationship between staff efforts and student outcomes  Need to involve and inform parents of the essential elements of RtI and their role in the process

Role of PS/RtI Coaches Mentor for School-Based Teams Technical Assistance in PS/RtI Data Collection Data Analysis Dissemination of Student Outcome Data

Coach Skills & Attributes Must be  excellent teachers (foremost)  strong communicators Should be:  flexible in terms of developing schedules  highly skilled at building trusting relationships  ambitious about the change process  respectful of teachers and the demands of the classroom  skilled at working with data  have effective problem-solving skills

Coach Skills & Attributes "Effective coaches embody...a 'compelling combination of personal humility and professional will.' They are affirmative, humble, and deeply respectful of classroom teachers, but they are unwilling to rest unless they achieve significant improvements in teaching and learning in their schools.” (Instructional Coaching/The School Administrator, April 2006)

Building Level Challenges Consensus Building  Need and Support for Interventions/Data  Use of building-specific data to make case  Data on outcomes for at-risk students Tier 1 Capacity Building  Early Intervening Services  Prioritizing Services Early Intervention Standard Protocol or Group Diagnostics Data  Availability  Management Integrating Tiers 1,2 and 3 Intervention Fidelity

Data-based Decisions “In God We Trust-Everyone Else Brings DATA!” School Wide Screenings (Is Tier 1 Working?)  FCAT data – is curriculum working for all groups? What is Needed for Tier 2 Interventions?)  Reading  Math  Other Content Areas Diagnostic Assessment (Informs Intensive Interventions-Tier 3) Progress Monitoring- Used to Evaluate Effectiveness of Interventions

Building Level Challenges: DATA Collection  What is collected and who collects it?  How frequently is it collected? Organization  Disaggregated by grade, gender, race, language, SES?  Designed to answer specific questions (Tier 1/2 effectiveness?

Building Level Challenges: DATA Management  Technology is imperative  AIMS-WEB, Wireless Generation  Local Programs Display-necessary to evaluate RtI  Goals/Benchmarks  Aimline  Trendline  Rate

Integrating the Tiers Tier 1 (Core) instruction present at all three levels Purpose of Tier 2 is to improve success in Tier 1 Purpose of Tier 3 is to improve success in Tier 2 Is there a single “intervention” plan made up of different Tier services?

Integrating the Tiers 5th grade student reading at the 2nd grade level  Tier 3 Direct Instruction, Targeted, Narrow Focus  Tier 2 Fluency, comprehension, pre-teach for Tier 1  Tier 1 Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted decoding How/where would special education fit into this?

Problem Solving Teams A school-based group composed of various school personnel who convene to provide assistance to children who are having academic or behavioral difficulties in school. The team is responsible for implementing a problem solving approach to identify and intervene in response to student’s’ needs within the arena of general education Schwanz & Barbour, 2005

Team Membership Broad Participation Model  Composed primarily of general education teachers who address challenges through the problem solving process Case Management Model  Composed of general education teachers and specialists who are assigned as consultants/case managers depending on problem identification (Iverson, 2005)

Problem-Solving Teams Apply a systematic problem solving process Focus on modifying instructional environment to support students Use interventions that have been determined to have a high probability of success given the problem identified Collect relevant data and monitor student progress frequently to assess student’s response to the interventions

Key Issues in Building a Team Teams function best when all members have strong group process skills Many teams have some (but not all) members who have been trained in group process skills Training the team in group process skills provides the foundation needed to work effectively using a problem solving model

Intervention Support Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff All intervention plans should have intervention support Principals should ensure that intervention plans have intervention support Teachers should not be expected to implement plans for which there is no support

Intervention Support Pre-meeting  Review data  Review steps to intervention  Determine logistics First 2 weeks  2-3 meetings/week  Review data  Review steps to intervention  Revise, if necessary

Intervention Support Following weeks  Meet at least weekly  Review data  Review steps  Discuss Revisions Approaching benchmark  Review data  Schedule for intervention fading  Review data

Important Questions Is this just another way to do child study? Have we focused primarily on Tier 3? Is our first focus on improving Tier 1? Does level and type of instruction vary across buildings based on student need and performance (e.g., 90 minutes vs 180 minutes of reading/language arts? Do we use data to make decisions all the time? Do we have regular data meetings to evaluate student performance? Do we have a data coach in each building?

Important Questions Do teachers think that we need to do this stuff and “then we can test the student?” Do parents believe that this is a “delay tactic?” Do we have expectations for Tier 2 (e.g., Title 1) intervention effectiveness--do we evaluate it? Do we monitor students receiving special education services more frequently than all other students? Do we really believe that almost all students can achieve state-approved grade level benchmarks? Is our continuum of services fully integrated?