1. The Changing Role of the School Psychologist with Implementation of RtI March 10, 2011 UW-Stout Linda Zeman Chetek-Weyerhaeuser Area School District

2. Topic How has my role changed in the last 23 years? How has RtI affected my role? How did I influence change in this direction? Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction summary of role using 3 elements of successful implementation NASP Model for Comprehensive Integrated School Psychological Services RtI in Chetek-Weyerhaeuser

3. Who am I? School Psychologist Director of Special Education District Assessment Coordinator ELL Coordinator All other duties as assigned....

4. About the district Small resort community Just over 1000 students PK-12 Very little racial diversity More than one in two of our students live in poverty Declining Enrollment Consolidation

5. More about the district Extensive data High Accountability Committed to Professional Learning Communities –Protocols for team discussions –Continual review of pyramid of intervention In the RtI journey for over 6 years

6. Chetek Twenty Years Ago District needed someone certified to administer an IQ test Psychologist role –Special education case management –Testing to determine special education eligibility –If time-anything else

7. Twenty Years Ago Wait to fail No early intervening services Gate keeper Special education was a place Low expectations for students The Black hole

8. 2000-01 Time Charting

9. Paradigm Shift High quality instruction and on-going screenings Targeted instructional interventions based on data documented student needs Strong focus on data

10. Basic Assumptions All students can learn If they are not making progress, then we have not found the right method yet Decisions are best made with data The most affective way to improve an area of weakness is to increase the intensity, time and focus in this area. Use limited resources where we can have the most impact If data does not support strong universal instruction, tier 2 and 3 are not appropriate ALL students would benefit from this model

11. Time Charting 2008/09

12. This Did Not Happen by Accident or Without Considerable Effort!

13. Wisconsin SLD criteria No cognitive estimate necessary Additional IEP Team Roles –Data analyst –Diagnostician –Interventionist Data Analyst – person qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress using a psychometrically valid and reliable methodology.

14. Data Analyst At least one licensed person qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress using a psychometrically valid and reliable methodology. A psychometrically valid and reliable methodology relies on all data sources specified in par. (g)., analyzing progress monitoring data that exhibit adequate statistical accuracy for the purpose of identification of insufficient progress as compared to a national sample of same-age peers. PI 11.36 (6)(d) 3.a,[lines 132-136]

15. Change of focus Old CriteriaNew Criteria Students achieved as compared to their intellectual ability Students achieved compared to state level standards. Information Processing Deficit-Within Child Deficit. Evidence of a disability is when a student does not respond as expected to evidenced based interventions. Achievement compared to age mates was important. Classroom instruction and improving student performance was not. Must prove that underachievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. Only one standardized measure of academic attainment was required. Data points over time must be used as evidence of achievement-repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals Assessment of student progress during instruction provided to the child's parent.

16. Supporting High Quality Instruction-Our Role Support efforts to collect, interpret, and use data about student learning and behavior success Support school and district efforts to determine the effectiveness of general instructional programming, additional supports, and interventions Accurately identify student learning and behavioral needs for differentiation Identify appropriate interventions and support services for learning and behavior. Provide interventions and support services for behavioral challenges. Provide observational data on the fidelity of RtI interventions.

17. Our Strengths Strong background in assessment and progress monitoring for learning and behavior. Able to provide interventions for behavioral challenges. Training and experience with identifying and selecting evidence-based interventions for academic and behavioral challenges. Awareness of legal aspects of disability determinations.

18. What we can’t do We are not licensed teachers and cannot provide instruction. We can not use formative academic assessment to determine the next steps in instruction and intervention.

19. Continuous Review of Progress-Our Role Provide expertise in selection of behavioral and academic assessments. Collecting relevant, high-quality academic and behavioral data and leaving teachers time to work directly with students. Interpret behavioral and academic assessment data so they can be used for timely educational decision making. Facilitate the mapping of academic and behavioral assessment activities to avoid over reliance on single types of assessment data.

20. Our Strengths Our training includes a strong element of assessment literacy in both academic and behavioral domains. We have skills necessary to provide, organize, and use benchmark assessment data.

21. What we can’t do Formative assessment of learning to identify day-to-day instructional needs.

22. Collaboration-Our Role We organize behavioral and academic assessment data into formats that facilitate educational decision making. We usually facilitate or participate in student- centered problem-solving teams in schools. We have a strong background in consensus- based team facilitation (IEP meetings) We help collaborative teams design decision rules to help identify when students need additional support or interventions.

23. Our Strengths We have training and experience leading and gaining consensus on educational decision-making teams. We can support RtI implementation and the ongoing RtI process at the classroom, grade, school and district level.

24. What we can’t do School psychologists are not typically administrators and do not usually assign or direct implementation efforts in a school or district.

25. http://www.nasponline.org/standards/practice-model/

26. The Big Questions What is your role as a school psychologist? What value do your services add in this new reality? How can you connect your knowledge, skills, and services to this work?

27. My Advice to You Make your work matter!

28. In Your Position Do the key leaders in the district know who you are and what you do? Does your job description reflect the broad role of the school psychologist? Does your work link to the district mission and goals? Do you have evidence that what you do matters for –Kids –Teachers –school leaders

29. In Your Position Does your performance evaluation reflect your role? Have you clearly articulated what is happening with RtI in your district? Are you prepared to provide guidance to all on any aspects of RtI? Do you know where to find resources that you need?

30. Remember If you do not have a seat at the table, you probably are on the menu!

31. THE BASICS What does it look like in Chetek- Weyerhaeuser

32. District Pyramid of Interventions

33. Elementary Pyramid of Interventions

34. Secondary Pyramid of Interventions

35. Benchmark Testing-Charting Results

36. Organizing PM Data for Interventionists

37. PM Visuals-Student Level Results

38. Linda Zeman lindazeman@chetek.k12.wi.us

39. Any questions?