FloridaRtI.usf.edu

1. Problem Solving/Response to InterventionLessons Learned from Pilot Districts AMM 2008 Sept. 18 A collaborative project between the Florida Department of Education and the University of South Florida FloridaRtI.usf.edu

2. Advance Organizer Presenters- Amelia Van Name Larson Supervisor of Student Services, Pasco County Susan Hudson RtI Coach, Walton County Clark Dorman Project Leader, Florida’s PS/RtI Pilot Project, USF • Overview of Project • Lessons from Walton • Lessons from Pasco

3. Project Staff Co-Directors George Batsche - Batsche@tempest.coedu.usf.edu Mike Curtis - Curtis@tempest.coedu.usf.edu Project Leader Clark Dorman - Dorman@coedu.usf.edu Regional Coordinators /Trainers Beth Hardcastle - North - Hardcast@coedu.usf.edu Brian Gaunt - Central – Gaunt@coedu.usf.edu Kelly Justice - South - Justice@coedu.usf.edu Project Evaluators Jose Castillo - Castillo@coedu.usf.edu Connie Hines - Hines@tempest.coedu.usf.edu

4. Project Staff (cont’d) Business Manager Teri Hunter – Hunter@coedu.usf.edu Communications Coordinator Judi Hyde - Jhyde@tempest.coedu.usf.edu Program Assistant Stevi Schermond - Schermon@coedu.usf.edu Technology Coordinator Emiliano Cardona – Cardona@coedu.usf.edu

5. Project Staff (cont’d) • Graduate Research Assistants (7) • Amand March, Coordinator • Kristelle Malval • Devon Minch • Josh Nadeau • Leeza Rooks • JC Smith • Kevin Stockslager

6. Florida PS/RtI Project Two purposes of PS/RtI Project: Statewide training in PS/RtI Evaluate the impact of PS/RtI on educator, student, and systemic outcomes in pilot sites implementing the model

7. Statewide Training Overview 3 year training curriculum Problem Solving Process 3-Tiered RtI Model Systems Change Limited technical assistance and support Limited data collection

8. Statewide Training Sites

9. Statewide Training • Offered to building and district leadership teams from all 67 Florida school districts • Participation: • 50 school districts • 50 district leadership teams • 117 school leadership teams • 1,420 individuals trained

10. Statewide Training • 3-day training sequence in Year 1 (3 days in most settings) • 26 training days across 16 locations • 15 technical assistance sessions • Data collection

11. Statewide Training • Statewide dissemination of 3 issues of • Florida RtI Update • Web-based interactive professional development module completed and available addressing basic content relating to PS/RtI • Project website: http://floridarti.usf.edu/

12. Demonstration District/ Pilot School Project Overview 3 year training curriculum Problem Solving Process 3-Tiered RtI Model Systems Change School, District and Project personnel work collaboratively to implement PS/RtI model Training, technical assistance, and support provided to schools Purpose = program evaluation

13. Selected Pilot Sites 8 Demonstration School Districts 40 pilot PS/RtI schools 32 matched comparison schools Districts and schools vary in terms of Geographic location Student demographics Districts: 6,200 – 360,000 students

14. Demonstration Districts

15. Year One • Day 1 - Big Ideas • Day 2 - Problem Identification • Day 3 - Problem Analysis • Day 4 - Intervention Design/Implementation • Day 5 - Response to Intervention Primary Focus - Consensus, Tier I

16. Demonstration District/ Pilot School Project – Year 1 65 training sessions for school-based leadership teams from pilot schools, delivered in 13 locations involving 290 individuals 244 training sessions conducted in demonstration districts by coaches 9 data collection training sessions conducted by project evaluation personnel

17. Demonstration District/ Pilot School Project – Year 1 8 data collection technical assistance sessions conducted by project evaluation personnel 36 technical assistance sessions by Regional Coord’s 933 technical assistance sessions by coaches

18. Demonstration District/ Pilot School Project – Year 1 Data Collection: 9515 surveys completed addressing beliefs, satisfaction, practices, skills, evaluation of training, and evaluation of coaching 93 self-assessments of problem solving implementation 2702 integrity measures completed by coaches 2153 direct skill assessments completed

19. In the beginning None of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge All of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge necessary to participate in a Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Model

20. Over Time None of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge All of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge necessary to participate in a Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Model

21. Goal None of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge All of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge necessary to participate in a Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Model

22. Avoid This

23. “The ELEPHANT in the Room” Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Administrators’ Management Meeting September 18, 2008 The Walton County Project University of South Florida/Department of Education Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Pilot District Rosemary Ragle, Exceptional Student Education Coordinator District PS/RtI Liaison Susan M. Hudson, M.S., L.S.P. Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Coach Licensed School Psychologist

24. The ELEPHANT in the Room Randy Pausche

25. When there’s an elephant in the room, introduce it!! • That is what it is • We can’t change it • We have to decide how we’ll respond • We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand Randy Pausche

26. How we began to tackle the ELEPHANT in Our room? • Establish District Leadership Team (School Improvement, Curriculum, etc.) meets three times per year • Celebrate Successes & Develop Action Plans for Concerns • Establish School-Based Intervention Teams • Consensus Building at all levels • Needs Assessments at Pilot Schools • SLP Consensus Building Exercise “Stairways to Student Success” (SLP’s provide support in Kindergarten classes for reading components) • Extinguish the “I can’t do one more thing!” idea (Support) • Exceptional Education Teachers as Intervention Specialists

27. Building Consensus • “Hot Potato” – “after all, isn’t RtI ESE?” • A general education/special education collaboration • What does General Education have to gain? • What does Special Education have to gain?

28. Building Infrastructure: • District Leadership Focus (3X’s per Year): Consensus, Infrastructure and Implementation Issues Needs Assessment Core Effectiveness • School (Tier I Core Focus/3 X’s per Year): School-wide/Class-wide Data Days (review recent data) Allow current data to drive core changes • School-Based Intervention Teams: Weekly problem-solving (1-2 hours per week) Facilitate grade level meetings Serve as positive role models for PS/RtI Plan and Provide Professional Development for Staff Problem-solving for students in need of Tier II and Tier III services

29. ALL for (tier) One and (tier) One for ALL!! First things first (Tier I Decision-Making): • Collect core data from assessments that are administered in small increments over short periods of time (DIBELS; Supplemental Materials from reading, math, and behavior; PBS/SWIS; district writing assessments). • Schedule grade level meetings to discuss short-cycle assessment data three times per year • Examine the data as a grade level to determine core effectiveness for all students/subgroups: gender, ethnicity, ELL, and SWD’s -- around 80% -- if not, problem-solve at the Tier I Level (Schoolwide/Classwide): * Identify any problems that exist * Analyze why the problem exists * Develop interventions that are based on the “why” * Monitor the response to interventions Examples of Tier I Problem Solving: Attendance/Tardy/Reading Issue

30. Core Instruction is effective for 59.1% of Low Socio- Economic Status students. (69% of Second Grade students are low SES) Tier I Problem Identification:What is the problem?

31. Low SES do not meet ORF benchmark because they need oral language vocabulary skills. Low SES students do not meet ORF benchmark because their parents don’t get them to school on time. Low SES students do not meet ORF benchmark because they lack access to effective instruction. If low SES students are exposed to picture vocabulary cards, synonyms and word association context clues activities, then they will increase their performance on ORF. CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS!! If the second grade reading block is moved from 8:00 – 9:30 to 10:00 – 11:30, then students’ performance on ORF will increase. Supporting Data: excessive tardies in 07-08 first gradeand PMRN data Analysis of the Problem(Why is it occurring?)

32. Intervention Design(What are we going to do about it? Intervention : The reading block for second grade students (07-08 first grade) will be moved to 10:00 for 90 minutes.

33. Tier I & II: Core Focus Worksheet For a copy of worksheet, email: hudsonsu@walton.k12.fl.us

35. One of our Bright and Shining Stars Jack

36. Tier III: Problem-Solving Worksheet For a copy of worksheet, email: hudsonsu@walton.k12.fl.us

38. THE CHALLENGE:What will you do with the “ELEPHANT in YOUR room?”************************************* • Accept what you don’t know • Be perfectly willing to admit it • Be willing to stay with it until you understand it

39. Thank You for your Attention!! Susan

40. Resources floridarti.usf.eduwww.nasponline.org/advocacy/rtifactsheets.aspxwww.fcrr.orginterventioncentral.comwww.studentprogress.orgwww.whatworks.ed.govwww.pbis.orgwww.modelprogram.comreading.uoregon.edudibels.uoregon.edu

41. Skill Up Before Scaling Up District School Board of Pasco County AMM September 18, 2008

42. Pasco County Organizational Chart for Communication, Reporting & Training PS/RtI District Taskforce Team District Project Liaison FL DOE/USF Project Coordinator Assistant Superintendent PS/RtI Coaches PS/RtI Technical Assistance Team Principal Literacy Team & Discipline Committees School-Based PS/RtI Team Teachers

43. Selected Pilot Sites • 2007-08 Pilot Schools in Pasco: • Project: AES, FHES, GTES, MLES, NRES, SAES, SOES • Internal: GSES, LES, *MPLES, NWES, OES, SES • Kindergarten and *School-wide Behavior • 2008-09- Project • AES: Jackie Jackson Dean • FHES: Kelly Henson • *GTES: Jose Castillo • MLES: Jeremy Blair • NRES: Cat Raulerson • SAES: Larry Porter • SOES: Cat Raulerson • Kindergarten, First and *School-wide Behavior • Internal • GSES: Jackie Jackson Dean • LES: Kelly Henson • *MPLES: Tara Davis • NWES: Angela Sheble • OES: Cat Raulerson • SES: Molly Blair • WZES: Dave Armstrong

44. Services Provided by Project • Services Provided to Demonstration Sites by Project and District Staff • Funding for up to two Coaches • Training, T/A for Coaches & Building Administrators • Training, T/A for School-Based Leadership Teams • T/A in use of Technology and Data PASCO: • Training for District Technical Assistance Team • Facilitation of PS/RtI District Taskforce Meetings

45. Expectations for Pilot Sites II. Expectations of Demonstration Districts and Pilot Sites - • Collaboration between General Ed, Special Ed, and other projects • People with expertise - district and school level teams • Funds/Resources - evidenced-based instruction and intervention • Professional Development - support and attendance • Policies and Procedures • Technology/Data Systems • Making changes when the data indicate

46. Outcomes (What We Hope to Impact) Educators • Consensus regarding PS/RtI • Beliefs • Satisfaction • PS/RtI Skills • PS/RtI Practices • System • PS/RtI Infrastructure • PS/RtI Implementation

47. Outcomes cont. • Students • Academic achievement • Behavioral outcomes • Systemic • Discipline referrals • Referrals for problem solving • Referrals for SPED evaluations • SPED placements

48. Year 1 Focus

49. Training Curriculum • Year 1 training focus for schools • Day 1 = Historical and legislative pushes toward implementing the PSM/RtI • Day 2 = Problem Identification • Day 3 = Problem Analysis • Day 4 = Intervention Development & Implementation • Day 5 = Program Evaluation/RtI • Considerable attention during Year 1 trainings is focused on improving Tier I instruction

50. Core Cycle Core cycle is designed to provide the instructional diet that should be sufficient to ensure good outcomes for the majority of the students. The core cycle diet will benefit all, but will not be sufficient for some students. CONSENSUS BUILDING