1. MiBLSi S TATE I MPLEMENTER C ONFERENCE M ARCH 22, 2012 Sustaining Response to Intervention 1

2. Take Aways Intentional communication  Cross-functional teams Systems thinking  De-silo departments Strong leadership and risk taking Problem Solving Patience Ongoing consensus building ( especially with fiscal limits) Data, Data, Data ……. 2

3. Ingham RtI Journey 1. Where have we been with RTI? 2. Why must we sustain RtI? 3. How do we sustain RtI? 4. What is the $ impact? 3

4. RtI is a framework A way of thinking Systemic approach What RtI is not Not a program Not a curriculum Not the latest educational fad 4 What is RtI?

5. Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% 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 Universal Interventions All students Preventive, proactive Universal Interventions All settings, all students Preventive, proactive School-wide Systems for Student Success

6. Why is a New Approach Needed? To improve student achievement, student growth We cannot wait for students to fail Too many GE students are at risk Current system moves at-risk learners to SE  High cost of SE impacts resources for all SE has not closed the achievement gap  SE legislation and funding 25+ years  Resulted in poor student outcomes  Failed to demonstrate cost effectiveness  Failed to validate aligning instruction to SE diagnostic classification 6

7. Ingham ISD Collaboration Scope  12 districts & 2 PSAs, 91 buildings  100% of districts joined RtI collaboration Led with General Education Funding  ARRA initially, now ended  Operational funds, districts & Ingham ISD  MiBLSi  State Aid section 31(a) At-risk  Title I, Title II 7

8. Strategies to Sustain RTI Collaborative approach Support structures Communication Data to drive decisions Special ED paradigm shift Funding options and education 8

9. Collaborative Approach Collaboration  ISD and district  Cross-functional teamwork  GE and SE  Building and district level  Program and support areas, HR, Business, Tech Synergy  Sharing among districts  Momentum and energy  Healthy competition 9

10. Collaborative Approach Economies of scale  Trainings  Purchasing  Efficient and effective support structures Approach  Led with General Ed  Standardize practice and customize implementation 10

11. Leadership Training Principals’ Academy District & building leadership teams Liaison model Technical support and assistance Data analysis Literacy and Math  Core curriculum  Interventions  Explicit teaching Positive Behavior Early Warning Signs Teachers Learning Together Support Structures 11

12. Communication Local implementation meetings Job-a-like meetings  Superintendents  Curriculum Directors  Special Education  Business Local and ISD Board presentations Liaison model Building awareness, rationale for sustaining 12

13. Student Outcome Data Process data Universal screener Core curriculum EWS Plan/ Explorer/ ACT Software collaboration Building self assessmnt Believe survey Practice survey Pet- R, SWEPT BOQ SAS, S-TIC, BAT Data to Drive Decisions 13

14. Ingham Service Area

19. Haslett

20. Impact of Core Reading Program Percentage of Students at Benchmark

21. Special Ed Paradigm Shift Restructure ISD to support ALL Ed model New common mission and vision Re-prioritizing staff and resources Prevention is key Supporting itinerant staff in role shift Joint staff responsibilities 21

22. Special Education Mission To maintain high expectation for achievement for all students in both academics and behavior. Through the use of data-driven problem solving and decision making, we provide supplemental, explicit instruction, interventions, services and supports which are differentiated to meet the unique needs of all students who are unsuccessful within the general curriculum via a multi-tiered system of supports and interventions. This collaborative support is provided by teachers, both general education and special education, families and community partners. 22

23. Special Education Vision As evidenced by our passionate commitment, Ingham ISD will support the implementation of a unified, multi-tiered system of supports that maintains high expectations for student growth and achievement for all students. This vision will be achieved through:  Unified commitment to all students  Blended resources  Flexible use of funding  Providing research-based and high quality  Instruction  Interventions  Supports 23

24. Special Education Vision, con’t Use of student data, not student eligibility Use of problem solving at the  District level, building level, grade level, student level Implementation and facilitation of  Universal screening and progress monitoring This collaborative support will prepare students to be college/career ready and productive and included members of their community. Students who require constant, intensive academic and /or behavioral support and instruction and who are unable to close achievement gaps will be evaluated and if determined eligible, will be provided legal protections under state and federal requirements for special education. 24

25. National Data - Learning Disabilities 80% of LD are eligible in the area of reading The majority of LD students have average to above average intelligence Most reading difficulties result from poor instruction, lack of reading readiness, cultural differences 25

26. Ingham ISD Special Education 7,200 students with SE IEP  16% of all students 4% severe/moderately impaired 12% mildly impaired Most SE students are mildly impaired  72% mildly impaired  28% moderately/severely impaired Very expensive  $102 million for SE added costs (over and above GE costs) Balance of SE cost from General Ed  $13 million in excess of dedicated SE revenue sources 26

27. Ingham ISD Special Education Students Served 2009-10 7,232* *SE = 16% of total K-12 Enrollment

28. Ingham ISD - Learning Disability Total SE (LD) cost$16,108,304 Number of LD students 2,449 Avg. SE cost per LD student $6,578 - above and beyond GE cost - instruction and support services only 28

29. What is the $ Impact? If LD student count and costs decrease No reduction in revenue  No reduction in Foundation revenue  No reduction in SE state aid categorical *  No reduction in Ingham ISD SE Allocation **  No reduction in Medicaid revenue  No reduction in Federal IDEA revenue Portion of savings could be applied to RtI * Must be reviewed on individual district basis ** If district has has unreimbursed SE costs 29

30. What is the $ Impact? If 20% Decrease SE LD student decrease (491) SE cost decrease ($3,229,018) Revenue change, GE & SE0 ($3,229,018) New costs to realign to RtI TBD Net $ Change TBD 30

31. Holt Special Ed Referral Data

32. Funding Options and Education Funding awareness and education  Develop awareness  Understanding cost, revenue  RtI can be more cost effective  Prioritization, realignment of resources  ISD  Local districts  Planning and communications 32

33. Funding Options State aid section 31 (a ) At-Risk  Direct services for students at-risk  “Flexibility” application  Exception to direct service requirement  Ingham ISD proposal to MDE for RtI  District applications  Governor’s 2012-13 State Aid Recommend.  Up to 20% of allocation  Flexible use 33

34. Funding Options Title I  Allowable expenses  Direct services to students  Math and reading supplemental  Use  Targeted  Optional apply for school-wide  School comparability requirement  Compliance  Supplement, not supplant  MDE field services review  School-wide or building  School comparability requirement  Supplement vs. supplant  Cannot replace operational funded items 34

35. Funding Options Title II  Part A - Prof Develop core subjects  Part D – Technology  Not separate allocation  Transfer A allocation to D, or Title I  Compliance  Supplement, not supplant  Consolidated application  Planning for 2012-13 35

36. Funding Options Special Ed Federal IDEA  Optional Early Intervening 15% Operational funds  Re-prioritize  Systems view  What are leverage points?  Focus on data 36

37. Funding Options Purchasing collaboration  Training  Economies of scale  National speakers  Core reading curriculum  High leverage point  Business and program partnership  Interventions  Read180  Technology interface 37

38. Where should you invest your resources? 38

39. Sustaining RTI Systems approach ALL ED approach Restructuring ISD services Special education paradigm shift Liaison model 39

40. Sustaining RTI Cascading communication loop, all levels Shared leadership Utilizing data to develop action plans Creative funding Prioritization of resources 40

41. The Collaboration Continues Standardize practice, customize implementation  Communication  Job-a-like groups Data driving targeted PD  Discuss district-specific plans  Identify needed support Alignment, prioritization  ISD organizational, resource support District planning, resource allocation 41

42. Questions 42