2. Objectives  Understand the rationale behind MTSS  Understand the TIPS process  Apply TIPS to analyze Tiers I, II, and III

3. 3 Responsiveness to Instruction Positive Behavior Intervention and Support RtIPBIS

4. Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) RtI PBIS Both systems of support began in 2000

5. Shift in Focus Process for some students Framework for total school improvement

6. Rationale Feedback from implementers Effective Problem- Solving NC schools have requested the collaboration NC schools have made the shift National movement NC schools have requested the collaboration NC schools have made the shift National movement Teams address academics and behaviors Seamless system of instructional support Vertical planning in feeder patterns Teams address academics and behaviors Seamless system of instructional support Vertical planning in feeder patterns

7. Layering of Instructional Support Critical Components Data-Driven Problem-Solving Model Focus on Instruction Systems Change Approach Staff & Student Process & Outcomes Commonalities

8. Perceived focus on individual students Individual paperwork at all Tiers 7 Step Problem- Solving Individual student data only Education in silos Perceived as route to Special Ed Focus on Core instruction at all tiers TIPS Monitor all students’ response All students in Tier I Shared Education Core Paperwork at Tier I 4 Tiers3 Tiers

9. Title I ESL AIG Special Education Educating in silos 9 Slide created by Dale Cusumano, Ph.D.

10. Title I ESL AIG Special Education Educating Collaboratively 10 Slide adapted from Dale Cusumano, Ph.D.

11. Tweet  140 characters or less describe the differences between RtI and MTSS  Include #s etc.

12. Tier I: Core 12 Who: All students are in Tier I (Core) What: Evidence-based programs and practices demonstrated to produce good academic and behavior outcomes for the majority of students Effectiveness: If at least 80% of all students are meeting academic and behavior benchmarks in Core alone. What about subgroups? Slide adapted from G. Batsche

13. Tier II: Supplemental Instruction Slide adapted from G. Batsche Who: Students needing supplemental support in addition to Core instruction (approx. 20% of students) What: Evidence-based programs and practices demonstrated to improve academic and behavior performance in Core Effectiveness: If at least 70-80% of students improve academic and behavior performance (toward Core standards)

14. Tier III: Intensive Instruction 14 Who: Students needing Intensive support in addition to Supplemental and Core instruction (approx. 5% of students) What: Evidence-based programs and practices demonstrated to improve academic and behavior performance Effectiveness: Academic and behavior progress toward performance in Core Slide adapted from G. Batsche

15. What Happened? 15

16. Refining Our System Student TeachersFramework

17. District Implementation Team School Implementation Team Grade Level Individual Student Problem-Solving Team

18. Teaming Structures  Draw out your school’s teaming structures  Utilize lines to depict the communication links between the teams in your building

19. Critical Components of MTSS 1. Leadership and Shared Responsibility 2. Problem-Solving/Data Driven Decision Making 3. Assessment 4. Curriculum and Instruction 5. Sustainability and Integration 6. Family and Community Collaboration 19

21. Tier I: Core 21 Who: All students are in Tier 1 (Core) What: Evidence-based programs and practices demonstrated to produce good academic and behavior outcomes for the majority of students Effectiveness: If at least 80% of all students are meeting academic and behavior benchmarks in Core alone. What about subgroups? Slide adapted from G. Batsche

22. Analyzing Core  Are at least 80% of your students proficient in each subgroup with Core alone?  What is working? Why? How do you know?  What’s not working? Why? How do you know?  Do teachers have needed skills & content knowledge?

23. Analyzing Core  More efficient to problem-solve the core than individual students  Trends in data  Consider environmental interventions

24. Framing Key Concepts Academic Engaged Time (AET) is the best predictor of student achievement  330 minutes in a day, 1650 in a week and 56,700 in a year  This is the “currency” of instruction/intervention  It’s what we have to spend on students  How we use it determines student outcomes MOST students who are behind will respond positively to additional CORE instruction  Schools have more staff qualified to deliver core instruction than specialized instruction  Issue is how to schedule in such a way as to provide more exposure to core Slide created by G. Batsche

25. Team Time Discuss amount of time for Core for all students Do all students receive Core? Do students have enough time within receiving Core?

26. Using Team Initiated Problem- Solving (TIPS)

27. Happy Elementary School (4th Grade)

29. Tier I Data: Example Academic  EOG  EOC  Universal screening  Benchmark  Common formative assessments Behavior  Office discipline reports  Attendance reports  Survey data  Tardies/early dismissals

30. Triangulate Data Sources Data SourceFindings Behavior Data: Office Discipline Referrals (ODR) 10% of 4 th graders received more than 2 ODRs in 3 rd grade Attendance (absences)4% of 4 th grade students have missed more than 10 days of school in 3 rd grade Attendance (tardies)11% of 4 th grade students have been identified as chronically tardy to school Reading EOG Data55% of 4 th grade students measured as proficient on the 3 rd grade reading EOG Math EOG Data83% of 4 th grade students measured as proficient on the 3 rd grade math EOG

31. Formative Data: Universal Screening (Fall) 47% of students proficient on DAZE Summative Data: EOG 55% of students proficient (3rd grade data) Formative Data: Universal Screening (Fall) 80% of students proficient on DORF

33. Identify the Problem 47% of all fourth grade students met the target on DAZE

35. Develop and Test Hypothesis  Why is the problem occurring?  Ask questions across four domains InstructionCurriculumEnvironmentLearner

36. Develop Hypothesis Instruction Grade 2-3 instruction did not contain explicit vocabulary and comprehension components Word Study was the focus in Grades K-3 Curriculum Materials include a strong word study component Materials did not provide opportunities for comprehension strategy practice Materials did not contain rich and varied vocabulary

37. Develop Hypothesis Environment Schedule for literacy blocks in previous grades includes multiple transitions/interruptions School wide literacy plan does not emphasize vocabulary and comprehension development Professional development does not target vocabulary and comprehension development in Grades K-3

39. Instruction ReviewInterviewObserveTest Curriculum ReviewInterviewObserveTest Environment ReviewInterviewObserveTest Learner ReviewInterviewObserveTest Develop Hypothesis

40. Test Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Environment Review literacy block schedule Review school wide literacy plan Review professional development plan Review current DORF data Interview 2-3 grade teachers Observe current instruction in Grades K-3 Review materials

41. Results Instruction Teachers report: Strong knowledge base to deliver instruction for word recognition No consistent vocabulary and comprehension instructional strategies being implemented across grade levels and subject areas

42. Results Instruction Group 1: Accurate and Fluent Group 2: Accurate but slow Group 3: Inaccurate and slow Group 4: Inaccurate but fluent 80% of the students were accurate and fluent according to DORF data

43. Results Curriculum Materials did provide opportunities for comprehension strategy practice Materials did contain rich and varied vocabulary

44. Results Environment Literacy blocks include multiple transitions School wide literacy plan does not include a clear a set of strategies for delivering vocabulary and comprehension strategies Professional development opportunities focused on word study

45. Accept/Reject Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Environment ✔ ✔

46. Develop Hypothesis A CCURATELY D EFINED P ROBLEM A CCURATE H YPOTHESIS P RECISE P ROBLEM S TATEMENT Precise Problem Statement: 53% of all fourth grade students did not meet the target on the DAZE because consistent vocabulary and comprehension routines were not a focus of instruction.

47. Precise Problem Statement Only 47% of the fourth grade students met the target on DAZE because school wide literacy blocks are interrupted and a consistent set of vocabulary and comprehension strategy routines is missing from instruction.

49. Discuss & Select Solutions Instruction Schedule with the literacy to implement the Key Vocabulary and Key Comprehension Routines Discontinue current Purchase comprehension test prep materials

50. Discuss & Select Solutions Environment Consult with administration regarding: planning for vertical alignment developing vocabulary and comprehension routines changing master schedule creating on-going literacy PD plan providing coaching to support staff in use of organized text

51. Discuss & Select Solutions S- Specific M- Measurable A- Attainable R- Relevant T-Time-Bound

53. Happy Elementary Goal Short Term: By January, 53% of students in fourth grade will attain the benchmark score in DAZE Long Term: By May, 70% of students in fourth grade will attain the benchmark score in DAZE

55. Develop and Implement Action Plan Methods, procedures and materials Key Vocabulary Routine Key Comprehension Routine Plan of action K-5 classroom teachers and special area teachers will use the routines daily Fidelity checks Key Vocabulary Routine and Key Comprehension Routine walk- through forms will be used by literacy facilitators and administrators (alternating schedule) Specific goals Students become independent with the strategies

56. Develop and Implement Action Plan- Continued Progress- monitoring DAZE every other month Formative assessments Student artifacts Key Routine Rubrics Data decision guidelines 80% of the students do not show 80% mastery on formative assessments 80% of the student artifacts do not reflect accomplished according to KTL rubric Median score on DAZE does not show positive trajectory

58. Use weekly 1-5 survey from teachers to assess implementation of plan. Newton, J.S., Todd, A. W., Horner, R.H., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine K., 2010 Are we fully implementing the plan? 1 ….. 2 …..3 ….. 4 ….. 5 No Yes Evaluate & Revise Action Plan: Ensuring Fidelity

59. Evaluate and Revise Action Plan Data SourceFindings Behavior Data: Office Discipline Referrals (ODR) 8% of 4 th graders received more than 2 ODRs Attendance (absences)4% of 4 th grade students have missed more than 3 days of school Attendance (tardies)2% of 4 th grade students have been identified as chronically tardy to school DAZE49% of 4 th grade students reached grade level expectation Reading Benchmark51% of 4 th grade students reached grade level expectation Math Benchmark85% of 4 th grade students reached grade level expectation

60. Evaluate and Revise Action Plan Review data to answer the following question: Has the goal been met?  If yes, explore the following options:  Increase goal for the same problem.  Choose another problem to address.  Gradually fade plan.

61. Evaluate and Revise Action Plan Review data to answer the following question: Has the goal been met?  If no, explore the following options:  Evaluate fidelity of implementation.  Assess problem identification.  Consider the accuracy of the hypothesis.  Alter the timeline.  Find ways to adjust the solutions.  Review “like peer” data.

62. Evaluate and Revise Action Plan  Plan follow up session to initial professional development  Adjust grade level teams’ schedules to include weekly team planning  Review coaching schedule and prioritize coaching sessions

63. Team Time Discuss how your school(s) or district currently analyze Core data  What are you doing well?  What areas need development?

64. Analyzing and Monitoring Tier II

65. Tier II: Supplemental Instruction Slide adapted from G. Batsche Who: Students needing supplemental support in addition to Core instruction (approx. 20% of students) What: Evidence-based programs and practices demonstrated to improve academic and behavior performance in Core Effectiveness: If at least 70-80% of students improve academic and behavior performance (toward Core standards)

66. Team Time  Has your school/district analyzed the effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction/Intervention?  Do they result in success for at least 70-80% of students?  How would you gather this data?

67. Data Decision Rules OR

68. Data Decision Rules Step 1 – Examine universal screening results Step 2 – Identify lowest 20% of students in grade level Step 3 - Triangulate data sources Step 4 - Are all of these students demonstrating below grade level performance? Step 5 – Begin Supplemental problem-solving

69. Context: Eve  Grade: 2nd Grade  Time of year: Fall  Problem-Solving Team: 2nd Grade PLC, Reading Specialist, TIPS coach

71. Eve: Triangulate Data Sources Data SourceFindings Behavior Data: Office Discipline Referrals (ODR) 0 ODRs recorded Attendance (absences)K- Eve missed less than 5 days of school 1- Eve missed less than 5 days of school Attendance (tardies)K- Eve was tardy less than 5 days of school 1- Eve was tardy less than 5 days of school Literacy Data DORF: 33 wpm with 80% accuracy NWF-CLS: 35 NWF- WWR: 3 Math DataBeginning of year math assessment: meeting set targets

73. Identify the Problem Eve has an Oral Reading Fluency score of 33 wpm with 80% accuracy.

75. Develop Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Environment Learner First grade instruction did not provide systematic word study Materials did not provide enough direct, multisensory practice for word study and spelling skills Literacy schedule did not include a standardized component for word study Eve has deficits in oral vocabulary knowledge compared to like peer group

76. Test Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Environment Review Schedule Interview teachers Observe K-1 classroom instruction Review K-1 materials Learner Test CORE assessments

78. Results Curriculum Instruction Materials allowed for incidental phonics instruction Decodable readers were not included Teachers reported explicit phonics instruction There is no evidence for developing oral vocabulary skills

79. Results Environment The literacy block did not include a clearly standardized word study component Learner Eve demonstrates significant difficulties in word use Eve is reading words 38 wpm at the 1 st grade level with 85% accuracy

80. Accept/Reject Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Environment ✔ ✔

81. Precise Problem Statement Eve has an oral reading fluency score of 33 wpm with 80% accuracy because she has difficulty decoding words on the second grade level.

83. Discuss & Select Solutions Curriculum Environment Install a standardized protocol for word study Professional development and coaching to support word study components Small group instruction using Letterland Intervention My Sidewalks Fundations Learner Engage in SIOP activities with content Preferential seating

84. Discuss & Select Solutions S- Specific M- Measurable A- Attainable R- Relevant T-Time-Bound

85. Goal Setting Short Term: By January Eve will read 50 wpm with 90% accuracy on 2 nd grade DORF Long Term: By Spring Eve will read 78 wpm with 97% accuracy on 2 nd grade DORF

87. Eve’s Layering of Support Guided Reading/Letterland Letterland Intervention

88. Develop and Implement Action Plan Methods, procedures and materials Letterland Intervention Plan of action 5 times per week; 30 minutes per session Classroom teacher Fidelity checks Letterland classroom walk-throughs Letterland Intervention checklist Letterland practice profiles Specific goals Students become independent with the strategies

89. Develop and Implement Action Plan- Continued Progress- monitoring 2 nd Grade DORF assessment Letterland embedded assessments Data decision guidelines Letterland assessments: below 80% mastery DORF: 6-10 data points indicate negative or flat trend or if 3-4 consecutive data points are below the aimline

91. Eve: Results

92. Use weekly 1-5 survey from teachers to assess implementation of plan. Newton, J.S., Todd, A. W., Horner, R.H., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine K., 2010 Are we fully implementing the plan? 1 ….. 2 …..3 ….. 4 ….. 5 No Yes Evaluate & Revise Action Plan: Ensuring Fidelity

93. Evaluate and Revise Action Plan Review data to answer the following question: Has the goal been met?  If yes, explore the following options:  Increase goal for the same problem.  Choose another problem to address.  Gradually fade plan.

94. Evaluate and Revise Action Plan Review data to answer the following question: Has the goal been met?  If no, explore the following options:  Evaluate fidelity of implementation.  Assess problem identification.  Consider the accuracy of the hypothesis.  Alter the timeline.  Find ways to adjust the solutions.  Review “like peer” data.

95. Effectiveness of Tier II System Dan Should be 70-80 % effectiveThis is 25 % effective Eve

96. Effectiveness of Tier II System Should be 70-80 % effectiveThis is 75 % effective Alan Dan Eve

97. Team Time Talk about how your school(s) or district currently analyze individual and group Tier II data  What are you doing well?  What areas need development?

98. Defining, Analyzing and Monitoring Tier III

99. Context: Marcie  Grade: 3 rd Grade  Time of year: Fall  Problem-Solving Team: School problem-solving team

100. Tier III: Intensive Instruction 100 Who: Students needing Intensive support in addition to Supplemental and Core instruction (approx. 5% of students) What: Evidence-based programs and practices demonstrated to improve academic and behavior performance Effectiveness: Academic and behavior progress toward performance in Core Slide adapted from G. Batsche

101. Team Time  What percentage of students currently receive the most Intensive intervention/instruction in your school/district?  Does their data trend toward closing the gap?

102. Data Decision Rules Step 1 - Examine universal screening results Step 2 - Identify lowest 5% of students in grade level Step 3 - Triangulate data sources Step 4 - Are all of these students demonstrating below grade level performance? Step 5 - Begin intensive problem-solving

104. Triangulate Data Sources Data SourceFindings Behavior Data: Office Discipline Referrals (ODR) 3 ODRs in 2 nd Grade 2 ODRs in 1 st Grade Attendance (absences)8 absences in 2 nd Grade 8 absences in 1 st Grade Attendance (tardies)3 tardies notated in 2 nd Grade 5 tardies notated in 1 st Grade Reading DataDORF (3 rd Grade): 14 wpm DAZE (3 rd Grade): 1 Math Data3 rd grade beginning of the year math assessments indicate on grade level math skills when independent reading is not a required component of the concept

106. Identify the Problem Marcie has an Oral Reading Fluency score of 14 wpm with 70% accuracy.

107. Develop Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Second grade reading instruction did not provide systematic word attack skills. Previous supplemental supports didn’t develop Marcie’s phonemic awareness skills to mastery. Materials do not contain a systematic word study component Materials do not allow for enough multisensory practice for word recognition, spelling, and phonemic awareness skills

108. Develop Hypothesis Environment Learner Literacy plan does not include a comprehensive design for standardized word study in K, 1, or 2 Marcie’s receptive and expressive vocabulary skills are weak. She has difficulty with on-task behavior during instruction. Marcie is missing basic literacy skills.

109. Test Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Interview K-2 teachers Review supplemental supports Review K-2 materials

110. Test Hypothesis Environment Review School Literacy Plan Observe Literacy block Learner Test Speech Language Screening Observe Structured observation Test CORE assessments Test Survey level DORF assessment Review Social/developmental history

112. Results Curriculum Instruction Very little explicit phonemic awareness, word recognition, and spelling practice Teachers reported explicit phonics instruction in K-1 with adequate time for phonemic awareness Supplemental supports were not intensive enough to address Marcie’s skill deficits

113. Results Environment No consistent word study component for K-3 Learner Passed S/L screen; on task behaviors; SLA indicated a 1 st grade reading level; CORE assessments revealed deficits in phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency; no health concerns notated in social/developmental history

114. Accept/Reject Hypothesis Curriculum Instruction Environment ✔ ✔ Learner ✔

115. Precise Problem Statement Marcie has an oral reading fluency score of 14 wpm with 70% accuracy because she has not developed phonemic awareness and word recognition skills.

117. Discuss & Select Solutions Curriculum Environment Reading specialist will deliver HillRap in small group Small group instruction using HillRap My Sidewalks Fundations Learner None

118. Short Term Goal By January Marcie will read 18 wpm on 3rd grade DORF (.5 wpm/week) By January Marcie will increase from 23 wpm with 90% accuracy on 1 st grade DORF to 37 wpm with 98% accuracy (1.5 wpm/week) Intervention learning targets (98% mastery)

119. Long Term Goal  By May, Marcie will read 25 wpm with on 3 rd grade DORF  By May, Marcie will read 60 wpm with 97% accuracy on 1 st grade DORF

121. Marcie’s Layering of Support 121 Guided Reading Letterland Intervention HillRap (with Letterland cueing)

122. Develop and Implement Action Plan Methods, procedures and materials HillRap Decodable texts Plan of action Reading Specialist 5 times a week; 60 minute sessions Fidelity checks Classroom walk-through checklist; coaching feedback Student Data Notebook Specific goals Marcie will develop the necessary beginning reading skills to improve word recognition and fluency rate.

123. Develop and Implement Action Plan- Continued Progress- monitoring First Grade DORF once a week HillRap embedded assessments Data decision guidelines DORF: 6-10 data points indicate negative or flat trend or if 3-4 consecutive data points are below the aimline Curriculum embedded assessments don’t reflect mastery of learning targets

125. Evaluate & Revise Action Plan  Fidelity and integrity of instructional change(s)  Effectiveness of instructional change(s)  Make changes as indicated

126. Use weekly 1-5 survey from teachers to assess implementation of plan. Newton, J.S., Todd, A. W., Horner, R.H., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine K., 2010 Are we fully implementing the plan? 1 ….. 2 …..3 ….. 4 ….. 5 No Yes Evaluate & Revise Action Plan: Ensuring Fidelity

127. 1st Grade ORF Data

128. 3rd Grade Data

129. 3rd Grade DORF Cut Scores BOYMOYEOY Well Below0-540-670-79 Below55-6968-8580-99 At or Above70+86+100+ Marcie

130. 3rd Grade Student Scores BOYMOYEOY Well Below0-540-670-79 Below55-6968-8580-99 At or Above70+86+100+ Compare Marcie’s data to like peers 85% of 3 rd Grade students met the target on MOY DORF

131. Team Time Talk about how your school(s) or district currently analyze individual Tier III data  What are you doing well?  What areas need development?

132. Next Steps Refer to your “Teaming Structures” activity chart. Use the self-assessment form to guide your team’s discussion.

133. Questions? Thank you for your time! Have a great year!