Building Capacity for the Implementation of SRBI

Building Capacity for the Implementation of SRBI
Dr. George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director Institute for School Reform School Psychology Program University of South Florida

The Challenges Agreeing on a Vision Defining Problem-Solving/RtI
Agreeing on the “Model” Ensuring it is a General Education Initiative Creating Policies and Procedures Professional Development Creating Decision Rules Developing Interventions Intervention Support and Integrity

The Vision 95% of students at “proficient” level
Students possess social and emotional behaviors that support “active” learning A “unified” system of educational services One “ED” Student Support Services perceived as a necessary component for successful schooling

Components of the Organizational Delivery System
Academic and Behavior Instruction Learning Supports Leadership

Defining RtI

Response to Intervention
RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions. (Batsche, et al., 2005) Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

Problem Solving Process
Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary

Steps in the Problem-Solving Process
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION • Identify replacement behavior • Data- current level of performance • Data- benchmark level(s) • Data- peer performance • Data- GAP analysis PROBLEM ANALYSIS • Develop hypotheses( brainstorming) • Develop predictions/assessment INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT • Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available and hypotheses verified • Proximal/Distal • Implementation support Response to Intervention (RtI) • Frequently collected data • Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

The Model Basic Assumptions

Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention: Basic Issues
Effective Core Instruction is the basis for this model. The model cannot “fix” core instruction issues through student removal Academic Engaged Time (AET) is the treatment “dosage” for this model Cannot do “more” in “same” time frame The “unit of analysis” is the school building, not the district Role of the building principal is critical to the success of the model

Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention: Key Issues
Supplemental instruction is best delivered through “standard protocols” of intervention to groups of students with common needs Data drive decisions Time is our ally and our enemy Early intervention and Prevention Its all about the rate of student progress in the amount of time remaining Data collection WITHOUT intervention integrity is useless Staff, resources and time must match the demand

Components of the Model: Standard Procedures
All intervention and eligibility decisions are based on the assumption that the “core” instruction--academic and behavior--is effective. A single problem-solving process exists and the implementation steps and skills are standardized. Criteria exist for different types of RtI Criteria and procedures exist for eligibility Procedures exist to support intervention integrity and to document the “dosage” of intervention provided Intervention decisions are base on the type of RtI A cadre of interventions exist that the entire school is knowledgeable about

Problem-Solving/RtI Resource Management
1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Students Public Education Resource Deployment Support staff cannot resource more than 20% of the students Service vs Effectiveness--BIG ISSUE Academic Behavior

Intervention Framework
1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Students Intensive Interventions A few Supplemental Interventions Some Core/Universal Interventions All Academic Behavior

How Does it Fit Together? Standard Treatment Protocol
Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Addl. Diagnostic Assessment Instruction Results Monitoring All Students at a grade level ODRs Monthly Bx Screening Bench- Mark Assessment Annual Testing Behavior Academics Individual Diagnostic Individualized Intensive weekly Supplemental 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Core Intensive Standard Protocol Small Group Differen- tiated By Skill 2 times/month None Continue With Core Instruction Grades Classroom Assessments Yearly Assessments

How Do We Know If This is a General Education Initiative?
Priority of superintendent and school board District Leadership Team Strategic Plan Focus is on effectiveness of Tier 1 for disaggregated groups Unit of Analysis is the BUILDING

How Do We Know If This is a General Education Initiative?
Principal Led Regular data analysis Data Days Team focuses in improving impact of core instruction Prevention and Early Intervention Screening and early intervention with Kindergarten students

Policies and Procedures

Initial Steps District Leadership Team Building Leadership Teams
Curriculum/General Education MIS Student Services Special Education Reading, Math, Behavior Building Leadership Teams Mirrors District Leadership Team

Initial Steps Develop Implementation Plan 4 Years
Consensus, Infrastructure, Implementation Begin with Tier 1 Issues Data Effectiveness Evaluate Effectiveness of Supplemental Services 70% Criterion

Initial Steps Develop Implementation Plan Infrastructure
Data Decision Rules Technology Cascade of Interventions (Integrated) Intervention Support Identify Professional Role and Development Needs Data Coach and Skills Problem-Solving Process Intervention Development and Support Parent Involvement

Initial Steps Develop Implementation Plan Implementation
Entire District Vertical Programming Pilot Schools Evaluation Plan

Personnel Critical to Successful Implementation
District-Level Leaders Building Leaders Facilitator Data Coach Teachers/Student Services Parents Students

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

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

Role of the Facilitator
Ensures pre-meeting preparation Reviews steps in process and desired outcomes Facilitates movement through steps Facilitates consensus building Sets follow-up schedule/communication Creates evaluation criteria/protocol Ensures parent involvement

Data Coach Gathers and Organizes Tier 1 and Tier 2 Data
Supports staff for small group and individual data Provides coaching for data interpretation Facilitates regular data meetings for building and grade levels

Role of Participants Review Request for Assistance forms prior to meeting Complete individual problem-solving Attitude of consensus building Understand data Research interventions for problem area

Role of Parent Review Request for Assistance form prior to meeting
Complete individual problem solving Prioritize concerns Attitude of consensus building

Student Involvement Increases motivation of student
Reduces teacher load Teaches self-responsibility

Change Model Consensus Infrastructure Implementation 31

Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI
Consensus Belief is shared Vision is agreed upon Implementation requirements understood Infrastructure Development Problem-Solving Process Data System Policies/Procedures Training Tier I and II intervention systems E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan Technology support Decision-making criteria established Implementation

The Process of Systems Change
Until, and unless, Consensus (understanding the need and trusting in the support) is reached no support will exist to establish the Infrastructure. Until, and unless, the Infrastructure is in place Implementation will not take place. A fatal flaw is to attempt Implementation without Consensus and Infrastructure Leadership must come both from the Principal and from the educators in the building.

Building Consensus Beliefs Understanding the “Need”
Skills and/or Support

Consensus: Essential Beliefs
No child should be left behind It is OK to provide differential service across students Academic Engaged Time must be considered first Student performance is influenced most by the quality of the interventions we deliver and how well we deliver them- not preconceived notions about child characteristics Decisions are best made with data Our expectations for student performance should be dependent on a student’s response to intervention, not on the basis of a “score” that “predicts” what they are “capable” of doing.

Contextual Issues Affecting The Problem-Solving Process in General and Special Education
IDEA Re-Authorization Focus on academic outcomes General education as baseline metric Labeling as a “last resort” Increasing general education options Pooling building-based resources Flexible funding patterns RtI Introduced as option for LD eligibility ESEA Legislation-No Child Left Behind National Emphasis on Reading Evidence-based Interventions

Why Problem-Solving ? BIG IDEAS
AYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of attention to student progress, not student labels Building principals and superintendents want to know if students are achieving benchmarks, regardless of the students “type” Accurate “placements” do not guarantee that students will be exposed to interventions that maximize their rate of progress Effective interventions result from good problem-solving, rather than good “testing” Progress monitoring is done best with “authentic” assessment that is sensitive to small changes in student academic and social behavior

Big Ideas (con’d) Interventions must be “evidence based” (IDEA/NCLB)
Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure of problem “severity” Program eligibility (initial and continued) decisions are best made based on RtI Staff training and support (e.g., coaching) improve intervention skills “Tiered” implementation improves service efficiency

Consensus Development: Data
Are you happy with your data? Building/Grade Level Student Outcomes Disaggregated AYP

Break for Group Discussion
Are you comfortable with the structures that you have in your district and school to support the implementation of SRBI? (DBLT, SBLT, Staff Roles) Have you developed an implementation plan? Have you achieved consensus? Have you identified the method(s) for achieving consensus? Break for Group Discussion

Implementation: Infrastructure

Infrastructure: Critical Issues
Policies and Procedures The Model Steps in the Model Decision Rules Decision Rules and Impact on Intervention Development Expectation for Tier Functions/Integration Data Collection and Interpretation Intervention Development Intervention Integrity and Documentation

Infrastructure: Policies and Procedures
Clearly delineate the components of the model Triangle 4-Step Model Identify steps/skills required for each component Decision Rules

Cascade of Interventions
Entire staff understands “triangle” and the available interventions at each Tier. Supplemental and intensive interventions are in addition to core instruction. A student intervention plan is a single document that is integrated across the tiers. Different tiers ensure that outcomes in Tier 1 are improved Tier 1 progress monitoring data are used for effectiveness determination for all Tiers

Three Tiered Model of School Supports: Anclote Elementary-Pasco County
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems 1-5% Tier 3: Comprehensive and Intensive Interventions Individual Students or Small Group (2-3) Reading: Scholastic Program, Reading,Mastery, ALL, Soar to Success, Leap Track, Fundations Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Individual Counseling FBA/BIP Teach, Reinforce, and Prevent (TRP) Assessment-based Intense, durable procedures 5-10% Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Students that don’t respond to the core curriculum Reading: Soar to Success, Leap Frog, CRISS strategies, CCC Lab Math: Extended Day Writing: Small Group, CRISS strategies, and “Just Write Narrative” by K. Robinson Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) Small Group Counseling Parent Training (Behavior & Academic) Bullying Prevention Program FBA/BIP Classroom Management Techniques, Professional Development Small Group Parent Training ,Data 80-90% Tier 1: Core Curriculum All students Reading: Houghton Mifflin Math: Harcourt Writing: Six Traits Of Writing Learning Focus Strategies Tier 1: Universal Interventions All settings, all students Committee, Preventive, proactive strategies School Wide Rules/ Expectations Positive Reinforcement System (Tickets & 200 Club) School Wide Consequence System School Wide Social Skills Program, Data (Discipline, Surveys, etc.) Professional Development (behavior) Classroom Management Techniques,Parent Training Three Tiered Model of School Supports: Anclote Elementary-Pasco County Students

Data Infrastructure: Using Existing Data to Predict Intervention Needs
Previous referral history predicts future referral history How do we interpret teacher referrals? Previous intervention history predicts future intervention history How do we use this information to establish an infrastructure for change?

Data-Driven Infrastructure: Establishing a Building Baseline
Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years Identifies problems teachers feel they do not have the skills/support to handle Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the staff, the resources currently in place and the “history” of what constitutes a referral in that building Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years Identifies focus of Professional Development Activities AND potential Tier II and III interventions Present data to staff. Reinforces “Need” concept

Data For Each Tier - Where Do They Come From?
Tier 1: Universal Screening, accountability assessments, grades, classroom assessments, referral patterns, discipline referrals Tier 2: Universal Screening - Group Level Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress monitoring, large-scale assessment data and classroom assessment Tier 3: Universal Screenings, Individual Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress monitoring, formative assessment, other informal assessments

Tier 1 Data

Tier 1 Data Example

Referral Analysis 42% Noncompliance 30% Off-Task/Inattention
12% Physical/Verbal Aggression 6% Relational Aggression 10% Bullying

Building-Level Behavior Data
% Building %Referred Male 50% 80% White 72% 54% Hispanic 12% 20% African American 15% 24% Other 1% 2% Low SES 25% 50%

Tier 2 Data

Has your district/school developed a policies and procedures manual for implementation? Do you believe that the existence of an “intervention map” would facilitate implementation? Are you comfortable with your data sources for Tiers 1 and 2?

Tier Functions/Integration
How the Tiers work Time aggregation Tier integration

How the Tiers Work Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or behavioral Greater the tier, greater support and “severity” Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that results in a positive response to intervention Continue until student strengthens response significantly Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level) Determine the relationship between sustained growth and sustained support.

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
Direct Instruction, Targeted, Narrow Focus (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, some fluency) Tier 2 Fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, pre-teach for Tier 1 Tier 1 Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted decoding Use core materials for content Progress monitor both instructional level and grade placement level skills

Intervention Development
Tiers 1 and 2 Critical Components Evidence-based

Intervention Development
Criteria for “Appropriate” and “Effective” Interventions: Evidence-based Type of Problem Population Setting Levels of Support Focused on most important needs Group interventions have priority Interventions MUST be linked to Tier 1 focus, materials, performance criteria

Tiers or Levels Tier One- Examining “Universal” Interventions
Questions: How is this student doing compared to other students? GAP analysis What percent of other students are achieving district benchmarks? Effectiveness of instruction Hypotheses Ho: Has this student been exposed to an effective learning environment? Ho: Has this student had access to an effective learning environment?

Interventions: Tier 1 Group students based on skill data
Differentiate instruction based on grouping Organize students based on skill performance Higher performing, more students, Lower performing, fewer students Same amount of time, different use of that time Breadth of skill focus might vary

Tiers or Levels Tier Two- Examining “Supplemental” Interventions
Hypotheses: Ho: Student requires additional time for direct instruction Ho: Focus of the curriculum must narrow Assessment: DIBELS, CBM, district assessments Interventions: Increase AET ( ) e.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan Narrow focus to fewer, barrier skills District Supplemental Curriculum

Characteristics of Tier 2 Interventions
Available in general education settings Opportunity to increase exposure (academic engaged time) to curriculum Opportunity to narrow focus of the curriculum Sufficient time for interventions to have an effect (10-30 weeks) Often are “standardized” supplemental curriculum protocols

Interventions: Tier 2 First resource is TIME (AET)
HOW much more time is needed? Second resource is curriculum WHAT does the student need? Third resource is personnel WHO or WHERE will it be provided?

Tier 2: Getting TIME “Free” time--does not require additional personnel Staggering instruction Differentiating instruction Cross grade instruction Skill-based instruction Standard Protocol Grouping Reduced range of “standard” curriculum After-School Home-Based

Tier 2: Curriculum Standard protocol approach
Focus on essential skills Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of core instruction Linked directly to core instruction materials and benchmarks Criterion for effectiveness is 70% of students receiving Tier 2 will reach benchmarks

Tier 2: Personnel EVERYONE in the building is a potential resource
Re-conceptualize who does what Personnel deployed AFTER needs are identified WHERE matters less and less REMEMBER, student performance matters more than labels, locations and staff needs. A school cannot deliver intensive services to more than 7% of the population

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

Critical Components of Intervention Support
Support for Intervention Integrity Documentation of Intervention Implementation Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical components

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

Intervention Support Second Two Weeks Following weeks
Meet twice each week Following weeks Meet at least weekly Review data Review steps Discuss Revisions Approaching benchmark Schedule for intervention fading

What strategies exist to prioritize intervention development? What structures exist to ensure intervention support and documentation?

Implementation: Critical Components

Evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention
Is the intervention evidence-based? How “intense” is the intervention? What can we “expect” the intervention to do? Was the intervention implemented as planned? How effective is this intervention with students from similar backgrounds? Research-based vs. evidence-based Is there research- or evidence-based data on the effectiveness of intervention with difference groups of students? What are realistic expectations for the improvement based on deficit in performance and the intensity of the intervention? Intervention fidelity

Demonstrates how you can use data to examine effectiveness – on the CD
Let’s try to improve slide- DAVE 88

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?
Positive Response Gap is closing Can extrapolate point at which target student(s) will “come in range” of target--even if this is long range Questionable Response Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening Gap stops widening but closure does not occur Poor Response Gap continues to widen with no change in rate. 89

Positive Response to Intervention
Expected Trajectory Performance 90 Observed Trajectory Time 90

Decision Rules: What is a “Questionable” Response to Intervention?

Questionable Response to Intervention

Decision Rules: What is a “Poor” Response to Intervention?

Poor Response to Intervention

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions
Positive Continue intervention with current goal Continue intervention with goal increased Fade intervention to determine if student(s) have acquired functional independence. 95

Questionable Was intervention implemented as intended? If no - employ strategies to increase implementation integrity If yes - Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving. 96

Poor Was intervention implemented as intended? If no - employ strategies in increase implementation integrity If yes - Is intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis? (Intervention Design) Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis) Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification) 97

Positive Response to Intervention
Expected Performance Performance Observed Performance Fall Winter Spring 99

Questionable Response to Intervention

Poor Response to Intervention

Tier 2 Decision-Making: Small Group
11 Students High Risk: Initial Sounds Fluency Additional 30 Minutes Direct Instruction Wilson’s Fundations Fluency

Tier 3 Decision-Making: Individual Student

Elsie Second grade student End of School Year Regular Education
Scores at 62 wcpm in second grade material Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF – not great, not terrible At the end of second grade, Elsie is a reader, but not a good reader. Her fluency is below benchmark. Her Fluency is also below her peers.

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction
Step 1: Screening ORF = 62 wcpm, end of second grade benchmark for at risk is 70 wcpm (see bottom of box) Compared to other students, Elsie scores around the 12th percentile + or - Elsie’s teacher reports that she struggles with multisyllabic words and that she makes many decoding errors when she reads Is this student at risk? Continue Tier 1 Instruction Training Notes: This is an example from a school that collected DIBELS data for a time, but did not use it. The spring of this school year is when they first started using their data to help make instructional decisions. Elsie’s historical data throughout second grade (fall and winter) are included for illustrative purposes. These are data of tier 1 screening data indicating an intense problem. That is, This Student is at Risk, General Education Not Working Elsie No Yes Move to Tier 2: Strategic Interventions

Decision Model at Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction
Supplemental, small group instruction will be provided to Elsie She will participate in two different supplemental groups, one focused on Decoding (Phonics for Reading; Archer) and one focused on fluency building (Read Naturally; Imholt) She will participate in small group instruction 3x per week, 30 minutes each – and she will also continue with her core instruction Supplemental instruction implemented by certified teachers in her school (2 different teachers) Progress monitoring about every 2 weeks Training Notes Additional data were collected on Elsie’s performance using additional reading fluency passages to look at both Fluency and accuracy (a proxy for decoding), she completed some maze comprehension assessments. Because her reading accuracy was below the preset cutoff in her school (95%), Elsie was asked to read some additional passages to elicit a set of errors. Her errors were typified and summarized. There were a number of patterns present in her errors (including multisyllabic words, compound word errors, and leaving off suffixes). It was noted that Elsie’s fluency also decreases as she is given even slightly more difficult passages. The literacy team in her school placed her in two existing supplemental groups as described above.

Training notes. At the end of

Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie
Benchmark Level: WCPM Current Level: WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 34 WCPM Time to Benchmark: Weeks Rate of Growth Required: 34/41= .83 WCPM for Elsie NOT VERY AMBITIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What would happen if we moved the target to the middle of the “some risk box?”

Benchmark Level: WCPM Current Level: WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 53 WCPM Time to Benchmark: Weeks Rate of Growth Required: 53/41= 1.29 WCPM for Elsie Peer Group Rate = about 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for “some risk” benchmark) REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

Questionable RtI

Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction - Revision
The intervention appeared to be working. What the teachers thought was needed was increased time in supplemental instruction. They worked together and found a way to give Elsie 30 minutes of supplemental instruction, on phonics and fluency, 5x per week. Training Notes The revised intervention made a huge difference. Elsie was now getting 2:00 hours of reading instruction a day (between her core and her supplemental) and she is making gangbusters progress.

Benchmark Level: WCPM Current Level: WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 44 WCPM Time to Benchmark: Weeks Rate of Growth Required: 44/27= 1.62 WCPM for Elsie Peer Group Rate = 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for “some risk” benchmark) REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

Good RtI

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction
Step 1: Screening ORF = on track for 100 wcpm, end of third grade benchmark for some risk is 110 wcpm (see top of box) Compared to other students, Elsie scores around the 19th percentile + or - Is this student at risk? Still a bit of risk, maintain Tier II instruction for another benchmark period, if progress continues, move to tier 1 Continue Monitoring or Move Back to Tier 1 Elsie No Yes Maintain Tier 2: Strategic Interventions

By the Spring of Third Grade
Elsie’s reading accuracy had improved significantly. Her average % correct hovers around 95 percent. She still struggles with multisyllabic words Normatively, at periodic and annual review time, she is now performing at about the 19th percentile compared to peers. She is catching up! Elsie is not a student with a disability

Behavioral Case Examples

Have a group discussion regarding decision rules for type of RtI and rules for intervention decisions. How will your district ensure consistent decision-making across students and schools?

Building Capacity for the Implementation of SRBI

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Building Capacity for the Implementation of SRBI"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Building Capacity for the Implementation of SRBI

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Building Capacity for the Implementation of SRBI"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback