Summer Leadership Institute

Summer Leadership Institute
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Problem-Solving at the Tier 1 Level For Elementary Schools Jeanette Tietjen August 9-10, 2012

COMMON BOARD CONFIGURATION
DATE: August 10, 2012 VOCABULARY: Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Problem-Solving Model (PSM) Data-Based Decision Making Universal Screening Response to Intervention (RtI) Prevention Framework Ongoing Progress Monitoring (OPM) BELL RINGER: List two factors that impact student engagement at the top of your agenda. LEARNING GOAL: To identify and use early warning indicators to develop appropriate interventions for secondary students. BENCHMARK: Knowledge of learning , accountability, and assessment standards as related to diagnostic tools to assess, identify, and apply instructional improvement. (Florida Standards for School Leaders) AGENDA: Bell Ringer –Engagement Indicators Using the Problem-Solving Model Key Indicators Intervention Strategies Reflection OBJECTIVES: Identify use of PS at the Tier 1 level of RtI to address school-wide needs Use data to identify needs and interventions SUMMARY ACTIVITY: Reflect on your current SBLT. Three questions to think about and answer. HOMEWORK: Complete School-Based Leadership form & return to J. Tietjen by Aug. 30

Lake County Schools Vision Statement
A dynamic, progressive and collaborative learning community embracing change and diversity where every student will graduate with the skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education and the workplace. Mission Statement The mission of the Lake County Schools is to provide every student with individual opportunities to excel. Lake County Schools is committed to excellence in all curricular opportunities and instructional best practices. This focus area addresses closing the achievement gap, increased graduation rate, decreased dropout rate, increase in Level 3 and above scores on the FCAT, achieving an increase in the number of students enrolled in advanced placement and dual enrollment opportunities and implementing the best practices in instructional methodology. Summer Leadership Institute

21st Century Skills Tony Wagner, The Global Achievement Gap
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Collaboration and Leadership Agility and Adaptability Initiative and Entrepreneurialism Effective Oral and Written Communication Accessing and Analyzing Information Curiosity and Imagination Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: To compete in the new global economy, companies need their workers to think about how to continuously improve their products, processes, or services. “The challenge is this: How do you do things that haven't been done before, where you have to rethink or think anew? It's not incremental improvement any more. The markets are changing too fast.” Collaboration and Leadership: Teamwork is no longer just about working with others in your building. “Technology has allowed for virtual teams. We have teams working on major infrastructure projects that are all over the U.S. On other projects, you're working with people all around the world on solving a software problem. Every week they're on a variety of conference calls; they're doing Web casts; they're doing net meetings.” Agility and Adaptability: Ability to think, be flexible, change, and use a variety of tools to solve new problems. “We change what we do all the time. I can guarantee the job I hire someone to do will change or may not exist in the future, so this is why adaptability and learning skills are more important than technical skills.” Initiative and Entrepreneurialism: Taking chances and being a risk-taker. “I say to my employees, if you try five things and get all five of them right, you may be failing. If you try 10 things, and get eight of them right, you're a hero.” Effective Oral and Written Communication: The ability to be clear, concise, focused, energetic and passionate around the points they want to make. “We are routinely surprised at the difficulty some young people have in communicating: verbal skills, written skills, presentation skills. They have difficulty being clear and concise; it's hard for them to create focus, energy, and passion around the points they want to make. If you're talking to an exec, the first thing you'll get asked if you haven't made it perfectly clear in the first 60 seconds of your presentation is, ‘What do you want me to take away from this meeting?’ They don't know how to answer that question.” Accessing and Analyzing Information: The ability to know how to access and analyze large quantities of information. “There is so much information available that it is almost too much, and if people aren't prepared to process the information effectively it almost freezes them in their steps.” Curiosity and Imagination: The development of young people's capacities for imagination, creativity, and empathy will be increasingly important for maintaining the United States' competitive advantage in the future. “People who've learned to ask great questions and have learned to be inquisitive are the ones who move the fastest in our environment because they solve the biggest problems in ways that have the most impact on innovation.” Summer Leadership Institute

High Effect Size Indicators
“The Department’s identified set of indicators on high effect size instructional and leadership strategies with a causal relationship to student learning growth constitute priority issues for deliberate practice and faculty development.” -Florida Department of Education, 2012 Student learning needs and faculty and leadership development needs will vary from school to school and from district to district. However, contemporary research reveals a core of instructional and leadership strategies that have a higher probability than most of positively impacting student learning in significant ways. The indicators below link formative feedback and evaluation to contemporary research on practices that have a positive impact on student learning growth. • Research on the cause and effect relationships between instructional and leadership strategies and student outcomes address the effect size of a strategy: What degree of impact does it have? • In the context of district instructional and leadership evaluation systems, effect size is a statistical estimation of the influence a strategy or practice has on student learning. Effect size calculations result from statistical analyses in research focused on student learning where the correct and appropriate use of a strategy yields better student learning growth than when the strategy is not used or is used incorrectly or inappropriately. • In research terms, those strategies often identified as “high effect size” are those with higher probabilities of improving student learning. Classroom teachers need a repertoire of strategies with a positive effect size so that what they are able to do instructionally, after adapting to classroom conditions, has a reasonable chance of getting positive results. As school leaders and mentor teachers begin to focus on feedback to colleagues to improve proficiency on practices that improve student learning growth, emphasis should be on those strategies that have a high effect size. Where every Florida classroom teacher and school leader has Summer Leadership Institute

Classroom Teacher High Effect Indicators
School Leadership High Effect Indicators Learning Goal with Scales Tracking Student Progress Established Content Standards Multi-tiered System of Supports Clear Goals Text Complexity ESOL Students Feedback Practices Facilitating Professional Learning Clear Goals and Expectations Instructional Resources High Effect Size Strategies Instructional Initiatives Monitoring Text Complexity Interventions Instructional Adaptations ESOL Strategies Classroom Teacher Multi-tiered System of Supports: The teacher provides a learning environment with multiple tiers of support to meet individual needs and affect positive change. Tracking Rate of Progress: The teacher’s implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) routinely collects, analyzes, and uses on-going progress monitoring data to evaluate student rate of progress aligned with behavioral and grade-level academic standards. School Leadership • Interventions: The school leader routinely uses teacher-collected student response data to determine effectiveness of instruction and interventions school-wide, grade-wide, class-wide, and specific to student sub-groups. (MTSS) Instructional Adaptations: The school leader routinely engages teachers collaboratively in a structured data-based planning and problem-solving process in order to modify instruction and interventions for accelerated student progress and to monitor and evaluate the effect of those modifications. (MTSS) Summer Leadership Institute

Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Defined
. . . Is a term used to describe an evidence-based model of schooling that uses data-based problem-solving to integrate academic and behavioral instruction and intervention. A Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS), in Florida, represents the integration of RtI for academics and RtI for behavior into a unified model of service delivery that recognizes the reciprocal influence academic performance and social/emotional/behavior performance has on each other (Algozzine, Wang & Violette., 2011).

Leadership Skills for MTSS Implementation
Models a problem-solving process Communicates and reinforces the expectation of data-based decision making Communicates and reinforces expectation that Tier 2/3 services integrate Tier 1 standards for performance, instructional materials and practices Schedules data-days through out the year Facilitates the development of instructional schedules based on student needs Ensures that instructional/intervention support is provided to all staff Ensures that instruction/intervention “sufficiency and the documentation of that occurs for all students Establishes a system of communicating students outcomes across the professional staff and with students and they parents Creates frequent opportunities to celebrate and communicate success.

How do we get started?

Problem-Solving Process
Step 1: Problem Identification What is the problem? Step 2: Problem Analysis Why is it occurring? Step 4: Response to Intervention Is it working? Step 3: Intervention Design What are we doing about it?

Where do we start with problem-solving?

Why do we need to start at the Tier 1 Level?

Tiered Interventions in High Schools
Examples Explicit, research-based instruction Culturally responsive instruction Standards-aligned instruction Scaffolding Differentiated instruction Academic literacy Formative assessment Clear behavior expectations schoolwide All students receive explicit, research-based instruction. ≈ 5% ≈ 15% Tier I High-quality core instruction that meets the needs of most students (NCRTI, 2010) Primary prevention (designated as Tier I in many schools) is high-quality, evidence-based primary, or core, classroom instruction provided to all students. In the elementary school context, an abundance of research exists to guide the development of a strong core curriculum in most content areas, especially in reading. At the high school level, however, the development of a strong Tier I is challenging, given the paucity of research in content areas other than adolescent reading. What does evidence-based instruction look like in algebra, biology, or economics? In the absence of systematic research in these areas, practitioners are drawing guidance from research on school improvement, alignment, and features of effective instruction and applying this knowledge across all content areas. In its visits, HSTII found that several schools emphasized the alignment of instruction with state standards. This is a useful strategy, considering that research indicates a positive relationship between this alignment and student achievement (Kurz, Elliot, Wehby, & Smithson, 2009). In addition, content area teachers were taught how to weave research-based instructional strategies, such as scaffolding, differentiated instruction, and ongoing formative assessment, into their instruction. Finally, several schools embedded literacy strategies (e.g., the use of graphic organizers and summarization strategy instruction) in all content area classrooms. ≈ 80% of Students © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI 13 © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI

School Based Leadership Team
School Based Leadership Team regularly engages in the following activities: Determine school-wide learning and development areas in need of improvement Identify barriers which have or could prohibit school from meeting improvement goals Develop action plans to meet school improvement goals (e.g., SIP) Distribute and assign resources to implement plans Monitor fidelity and effectiveness of core and tier 2 instruction Manage and coordinate efforts between all school teams Support the problem solving efforts of other school teams And avoids: Individual student intervention planning and progress monitoring Meeting without a clear agenda or goals Making decisions without input from key stakeholder groups Developing action plans without communicating the purpose, goals, and responsibilities to other stakeholders Delegating school-wide action planning responsibilities to teams with less decision making power or control over resource allocation

Team Membership Selection of team members should aim at creating a well-rounded team with specific skill sets represented Critical skills needed for effective team functioning include: Instructional leadership Data management and analysis Content specialization (minimally Reading, Math, Behavior) Student advisement, mentoring, and guidance Knowledge of evidence-based instruction/intervention Exceptional Student Education specialist (if warranted by population) English Language Leaning specialist (if warranted by population) Parent/Community involvement strategies

Start With the Data

Universal Screening Brief assessments for predicting which students will develop learning or behavioral problems and need intensive interventions Area of focus Measure Frequency Reading FAIR Lake Benchmarks (3-10) Conducted three times per year Twice yearly Math FCAT Annually Grades Failure of one or more content area classes Review at least each grading period Behavior Number of office discipline referrals Guidance department conducted review in December and May Attendance Number of students with excessive absences or tardies Review at least each nineweeks Universal screening is brief assessments that are valid, reliable, and demonstrate diagnostic accuracy for predicting which students will develop learning or behavioral problems and, therefore, need intensive intervention to supplement primary prevention (NCRTI, 2010). Although substantial research indicates that screening and progress monitoring are effective in elementary schools (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2002; Shapiro & Ager, 1992; Thurber, Shinn, & Smolkowski, 2002; VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2005), studies examining these practices for high schools are only now emerging. Despite the lack of empirical evidence, professional guidance and wisdom continue to emphasize the importance of ongoing data collection to overall school improvement (e.g., National Association of State Boards of Education, 2006; National High School Center, 2008; Reschly & Wood-Garnett, 2009). Several visited schools used measures (such as state tests or other standardized achievement measures in reading and/or mathematics) given at the end of eighth grade to place students into an appropriate level of intervention at the beginning of ninth grade. These schools used additional testing (standardized achievement measures or curriculum-based measures [CBMs]) at the beginning of ninth grade to verify student placement. Another method schools used was to examine “multiple failures”—that is, to identify students who failed one or more English and/or algebra class. Although this approach differs substantially from traditional screening methods in elementary schools, high school completion data indicate that passing grade 9 algebra and English classes places students on a positive trajectory and that not passing these classes significantly correlates with dropping out (Christenson et al., 2008; Jimerson, Reschly, & Hess, 2008). In lieu of more sophisticated screening measures developed specifically for high school use, this method has the potential to be effective. © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI 18

Tier 1: Examining “Universal” Interventions
Questions: What percent of students are achieving district benchmarks? Effectiveness of instruction How are these students doing compared to grade level benchmarks?

Data-Based Decision Making
Tiered Interventions in High Schools Data-Based Decision Making Using data from screening and progress-monitoring measures to assess students’ responses to instruction and/or intervention and making instructional adjustments to maximize student response Delivered differentiated instruction Used data from screening and progress monitoring to determine placement in interventions Made decisions during data meetings with various stakeholders Solicited student input on problem solving and intervention design Data-based decision making involves using screening and progress-monitoring measures to asses students’ responses to instruction/intervention and making instructional adjustments (e.g., moving to various interventions, reducing group size, increasing time in intervention, making instruction more explicit and systematic) to maximize student response. The observed schools initially used data from screening and progress monitoring to determine student placement in the tiered instructional system (e.g., Tier I only, Tier I plus Tier II). Later, the schools used these data to determine whether to move students to a more intense level of intervention or withdraw them from the intervention altogether. This decision making typically took place in data meetings with a range of stakeholders, including teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators. Several schools asked students to participate in problem-solving meetings and solicited students’ input on intervention design. This direct student participation can increase motivation, leading to better intervention design and greater commitment to implementation (Reschly & Wood-Garnett, 2009). Such student participation illustrates one key difference between RTI implementation in elementary schools and that in high schools. Some schools examined progress-monitoring data to differentiate instruction within the intervention class itself. For example, one algebra intervention class included approximately 30 students who all demonstrated a need for intervention. These students were further divided into smaller groups, based on how quickly they mastered the curriculum. One group of students moved to a new chapter, while another group reviewed a previously taught skill, and yet another group received a teacher-generated CBM to check for mastery of skills. These groups were fluid, constantly changing on the basis of progress-monitoring data. © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI

Ongoing Progress Monitoring
Tiered Interventions in High Schools Ongoing Progress Monitoring Yields data to assess students’ learning and academic performance and to determine whether a specific intervention is effective for a particular student Level of instruction Measure Frequency Tier 1 Ongoing formative assessment Common mathematics assessment Common writing prompts Grades Attendance Daily Monthly Nineweeks. Semester First 20 days of school, quarterly Tier 2 Maze passage D/F reports Time-sampling for behavior Every other week Weekly Tier 3 Measures embedded in intervention program Behavior tracking sheets Weekly, Daily Progress monitoring yields data to assess students’ learning and academic performance and to determine whether a specific intervention is effective for a particular student. Progress monitoring varied among the observed schools. Schools used a wide range of measures, including diagnostic measures (such as the Scholastic Reading Inventory), CBMs (such as maze passages), overall class grades, class quizzes and tests, and high school graduation tests (including practice or benchmark tests given throughout the year). Selection of the most appropriate measure or combination of measures for each school was dependent on (a) the school’s RTI scope and focus and (b) available resources—staff members, budgeted funds, and other resources such as technology. The frequency of progress monitoring varied due to similar contextual factors (such as staff availability) but, overall, occurred at least twice a month in secondary and tertiary interventions, using CBMs and standardized progress-monitoring measures. Schools typically administered diagnostic tools less frequently (e.g., once a semester) in intensive interventions to examine general cognitive processes and inform instruction. 22 © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI 22

Tier 1 Intervention Consider altering whole group instruction, curriculum materials, instructional routine, independent practice (e.g., literacy/math centers) Breadth of skill focus might vary Group students based on skill data (data come from many sources) 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 Additional options that might be identified as Tier 1 types of interventions. The larger the gap, the more likely we need to make adjustments to core as the priority. Might be worth opening up discussion, if you have time, about what constitutes a Tier 1 intervention. Can teams identify Tier 1 services at their school or modifications made to it over the last couple of years?

Types of Interventions
Skill Deficit Student lacks skills to successfully complete task Performance Deficit Factors interfering with student’s capability of performing the skill Two-basic types of problems with student underachievement: Can’t do, Won’t do. Ask: What should a team do if they are unable to identify which type it is? Assume skill deficit and teach the skill with fidelity and progress monitoring. If problem still exists, then move to motivation-based interventions to encourage/prompt the target behavior(s) to occur.

Fidelity is Key to Success
New improvement strategies do not always guarantee increases in student achievement, but partial implementation and inconsistent implementation will most certainly doom even the best strategies [and programs] to failure. (Dean & Parlsey 2010)

Now What? The SBLT continually progress monitors interventions using predetermined goals Predetermine decision rules If Intervention is working proceed If the Intervention is not working return to Problem-Solving in area of concern

Get Rid for the Zombie Interventions
Many classroom interventions currently in use are actually ineffective Research supports effective strategies, but also identified ineffective strategies Round-Robin reading Stand Alone Grammar Instruction Over-Reliance on Group Lecture

Tier 2 Intervention Some students needing group intervention in addition to Core Instruction ≈ 5% Provided in addition to primary prevention (core) Teacher-led, small-group instruction Ongoing progress monitoring and appropriate diagnostic assessment as needed Tier 2: Targeted Interventions ≈ 15% Evidence-based intervention(s) of moderate intensity that address the learning or behavior challenges of most at-risk students (NCRTI, 2010) Secondary prevention (sometimes implemented in Tier II of an RTI framework) consists of evidence-based intervention(s) of moderate intensity that address the learning or behavior challenges of most at-risk students (NRCTI, 2010). Tertiary prevention (sometimes implemented in Tier III of an RTI framework) consists of individualized intervention(s) of increased intensity for students who show minimal response to secondary prevention (NCRTI, 2010). All observed high schools used tiered interventions to address skill deficiencies preventing students from independently mastering the core content knowledge. Most schools implemented tiered interventions in reading, English/language arts, and mathematics, and some schools provided interventions to ELLs (e.g., using explicit vocabulary-building strategies linked to authentic text reading and writing). One school was at the beginning stages of implementing an intervention for science classes. ≈ 80% of Students © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI 30 © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI © 2011 NHSC, NCRTI, and COI

Tier 2 Characterized In coordination with and supplemental to healthy Tier 1 instruction Available in general education settings Increasingly Intensified Service: Instruction and Assessments matched to student needs More time to practice/increased practice items Increase Academic Engaged Time (AET) Focused/Narrow skills or content Direct Instruction of content Increased frequency of progress monitoring/assessment Provided as soon as students identified as “at-risk” through benchmark/screening assessments. Notes: There are different variables that could be considered for “intensifying” Tier 2. Where Tier 1 ends and Tier 2 begins is a matter of speculation and debate that will not be as valuable to students as ensuring that the right variables are being intensified to meet their specific needs. Some student will benefit from just more time with the same plan being used in Tier 1. Some students might need more time AND a slightly narrower focus on top of what is instructionally provided to all students. Some students will have social/emotional behaviors that are inter-twined with their academic frustrations and as a result just need a plan for increasing engaged time (e.g., on-task vs. off-task). Background: To help teams integrate Tier 2 with Tier 1, have them focus on the goals of Tier 1 and how supplemental instruction can be provided to help with the goals of Tier 1. Also, some schools or teams may be providing Tier 2 already for the sake of merely providing Tier 2 (compliance). Are they providing supplemental services without a healthy Tier 1? Do they have a plan in place for strengthening Tier 1 so that fewer students will require Tier 2?

Tier 2 Three Main Characteristics Evidenced-based interventions
Consists of small groups of students Involves a clearly articulated intervention implemented with fidelity.

Implementing & Designing Interventions
Identifying groups of students who share same academic and/or behavior needs Scheduling Interventions Staggering instruction Cross grade instruction Skill-based instruction PAWS Intervention Standard Protocol Grouping

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 Curriculum variables that might be considered at Tier 2.

Intervention Banks School teams identify research-based interventions designed for commonly occurring problems Identify school-based resources look at “best fit” for school/teachers/students Everyone uses same intervention(s) Saves time Mapping Out Resources This slide and the next 4 slides give information about how intervention banks can be helpful. This evolves into the concept of Resource Mapping for teams later in Year 2 and continuing in Year 3 modules. The concept of resource mapping has been expressed by some teams as elusive at first. But then they quickly realize it’s value in identifying gaps of service, duplication of service, and help communicate intervention options to teachers. It can also serve to help improve integrity of interventions in the school and help to keep track of what actually works for who and under what conditions. That is, to keep track of effective interventions. 35

Tier 2 Decision Making Monitor progress
Review student progress monitoring data at scheduled intervals How successful are students in response to Tier 2 Interventions? ≈ % is a good criterion Modify supplemental instruction as necessary Move students across tiers as data warrant One of the largest components of an RtI framework affecting Tier 2 is the establishment of a seamless data system for collecting, storing, managing, summarizing, distributing, and then analyzing student data on a frequent to semi-frequent basis. Approx. 75% of students should show in their progress monitoring data for Tier 2 interventions that they are closing the gap between where they are and the goal. This percentage criteria is not empirically based. Rather, it logically follows that most of the students in Tier 2 should be benefiting in order to avoid all students winding up at Tier 3. Difficult to justify a specific Tier 3 focus for one of those students if a large percentage of students are not benefiting either. Also, don’t want all students in the group to be identified for Tier 3 services given the amount of additional resources likely to be needed to support them all.

Reflection Reflect on your current SBLT, are all of the skills critical to working within a PS/RtI framework present on your team? If not, which components are missing? What are the implications of the missing skill sets? Is the team meeting regularly enough to maintain momentum and provide timely monitoring and feedback to staff and students? Are team processes clearly articulated so that team meetings run efficiently and accomplish the pre-set goals?

HOMEWORK Complete the School-Based Leadership Team form and return to Jeanette Tietjen

Resources Doing What Works - http://dww.ed.gov/
Florida’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports - Intervention Central - National Center on Student Progress Monitoring -

“Productive educational change roams somewhere between over-control and chaos You cannot mandate what matters, because what really matters for complex goals of change are skills, creative thinking, and committed action.” Fullan 1997 (pp )

Participant Scale and Reflection (Please complete and turn in)
0-Not Using No understanding or implementation steps taken away 1-Beginning Little understanding and inconsistent implementation steps taken away 2-Developing Moderate understanding and implementation steps taken away 3-Applying Consistent understanding and implementation steps taken away along with monitoring componets for effective execution 4-Innovating In addition to criteria of Applying, enhanced understanding, implementation, monitoring, and execution take aways Summer Leadership Institute

Summer Leadership Institute

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Summer Leadership Institute"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Summer Leadership Institute

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Summer Leadership Institute"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback