Implementing Response to Intervention District Wide: Critical Elements and Lessons Learned

1. Implementing Response to Intervention District Wide: Critical Elements and Lessons Learned CASE Winter Conference February, 2011 Dr. George M. Batsche Co-Director Institute for School Reform University of South Florida Tampa, Florida batsche@usf.edu

2. We can, whenever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far. The Conundrum of American Public Education Ron Edmonds, 1982 in DeFour et al., 2004

3. A mistake we often make in education is to plan the curriculum materials very carefully, arrange all the instructional materials wall to wall, open the doors of the school, and then find to our dismay that they’ve sent us the wrong kids.

4. 5 Priorities for Successful Implementation of RtI • Leadership • Leadership • Leadership • Planning • Scheduling

5. 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.

6. What We Need for Education Reform “Response to Intervention” (RTI) . . . a way of screening children, early in their schooling, that can help schools and educators identify those who may not be responding to instruction – and thus may be at risk for school failure. The technique allows schools, on a school-wide basis, to provide any student more intensive support–and monitor their progress – than may be typically available in every classroom. AlexaPosny, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education

7. National Perspective • 71% of districts are in some stage of implementing RTI – up from 60% in 2008 and 44% in 2007 • RTI is being increasingly implemented across all grade levels with a significant increase in high school implementation compared to 2008 • Of districts with enough data, 83% indicated RTI has reduced the number of referrals to special education • Districts reported the three primary obstacles to implementing RTI as: Insufficient teacher training, Lack of intervention resources, Lack of data, knowledge, skills for tracking/charting • www.spectrumk12.com

8. Shifts in the Law . . . Alignment of ESEA and IDEA • Improved student outcomes • Effective instruction (highly qualified teachers) • Early intervention and prevention • Use of evidence-based interventions • Use of data (data-driven accountability & data-based decision making)

9. Future Shifts • LEARN Act • Literacy core for the reauthorization of ESEA • Blueprint for Reform 2010 • Blueprint for the reauthorization of ESEA

10. LEARN Act and RTI  • LEARN Act is the literacy foundation of ESEA • RTI Language in the LEARN Act is called “Multi-Tier System of Supports • Multi-Tier System of SupportsThe term ‘‘multi-tier system of supports’’ means a comprehensive system of differentiated supports that includes evidence-based instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, formative assessment, and research-based interventions matched to student needs, and educational decision making using student outcome data.

11. A Blueprint for Reform-2010 • "Instead of labeling failures, we will reward success. Instead of a single snapshot, we will recognize progress and growth. And instead of investing in the status quo, we must reform our schools to accelerate student achievement, close achievement gaps..." (Forward) • ”…districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape." (Page 6) • ”A commitment to...Meeting the needs of students with disabilities throughout ESEA and through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." )Page 19)

12. Shifts inPractice . . . • Focus on intervention not placement • Use assessment to identify effective interventions • Base intervention intensity on student need rather than label or diagnosis • Make decisions based on student outcomes • Apply Problem Solving/RtI fluidly • Every Ed

13. To stay in the game and improve results, shift thinking from • Procedural Concerns to Instructional Focus • Reliance on Formulas and Checklists to Systematic Problem-solving • Territorial Silos to Blended Expertise • Label-seeking to Instructional Solution-seeking • Comfortable Safety to Sensible Solutions • “Testing” to Instructionally Relevant Assessment • Categories to Whole Child as a General Education Student, regardless of educational needs

14. Shift Thinking To…. Gathering and reviewing student performance data and related information on a regular basis Identifying & analyzing WHY students are not being successful Modifying instruction and developing interventions and supports Implementing evidence-based interventions Monitoring student progress and intervention implementation Adjusting instruction/interventions based on data

15. SHIFTHappens

16. RtI:Common Language Common Understanding

17. Consensus Building: A Shift in Thinking The central question is not: “What about the students is causing the performance discrepancy?” but “What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learners and learning environment should be altered so that the students will learn?” This shift alters everything else Ken Howell

18. TIER I: Core, Universal Academic and Behavior GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students. Tier I:Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction. Tier I: Begins with clear goals: What exactly do we expect all students to learn ? How will we know if and when they’ve learned it? How you we respond when some students don’t learn? How will we respond when some students have already learned? Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and viable core curriculum

19. TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted Tier II For approx. 20% of students Core + Supplemental …to achieve benchmarks Tier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards). Where are the students performing now? Where do we want them to be? How long do we have to get them there? How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there? What resources will move them at that rate?

20. Tier III For Approx 5% of Students Core + Supplemental + Intensive Individual Instruction …to achieve benchmarks Where is the student performing now? Where do we want him to be? How long do we have to get him there? What supports has he received? What resources will move him at that rate? Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals. TIER III: Intensive, Individualized

21. get these tiers of support in order to meet benchmarks. These students + = Three Tiered Model of Student Supports The goal of the tiers is student success, not labeling.

22. Key Points • Unit of implementation is the building level. • Implementation process takes 4-6 years. • Implementation progress must be monitored • Must be guided by data indicating implementation level and integrity • Must be supported by professional development and technical assistance • Driven by a strategic plan • It is a journey, not a sprint

23. RtI: Framing Issues and 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 • Its 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.

24. RtI: Framing Issues and Key Concepts • Managing the GAP between student current level of performance and expectation (benchmark, standards, goal) is what RtI is all about. • The two critical pieces of information we need about students are: • How BIG is the GAP? • AND • How much time do we have to close it? • The GAP is managed through acceleration of ALL students • The answers to these 2 questions defines our instructional mission.

25. RtI: 4 Priorities • High Performing: Identify students at or above benchmark • Where do we want them to be? • Set high performing goals • Analyze strategies to achieve goals • Determine authentic assessments • Student involvement in goal setting and self-monitoring

26. RtI: 4 Priorities 2. Prevention: Identify students at-risk for literacy failure BEFORE they actually fail. • Kindergarten screening, intervention and progress monitoring is key. • No excuse for not identifying ALL at-risk students by November of the kindergarten year. • This strategy prevents the GAP. • Managing GAPs is more expensive and less likely to be successful.

27. RtI: 4 Priorities 3. Early Intervention • Purpose here is the manage the GAP. • Students who are more that 2 years behind have a 10% chance, or less, or catching up. • Benchmark, progress monitoring data, district-wide assessments are used to identify students that have a gap of 2 years or less. • Students bumping up against the 2 year level receive the most intensive services. • This more costly and requires more specialized instruction/personnel

28. RtI: 4 Priorities 4. Intensive Intervention • Reserved for those students who have a GAP of more than 2 years and the rate of growth to close the GAP is unrealistic. Too much growth—too little time remaining. • Problem-solving is used to develop instructional priorities. • This is truly a case of “you cannot do something different the same way.” • This is the most costly, staff intensive and least likely to result in goal attainment

29. Florida Infrastructure

30. State-level Infrastructure Development for RtI • State Management Group • State Transformation Team • Regional RtI Coordinators and Facilitators • Differentiated Accountability A Regional RtI Specialists • Secondary Initiative Group • District Based Leadership Teams • School Based Leadership Teams • School-Based Coaches • Advisory Committee

31. State Transformation Team: Analyze progress toward statewide efforts, recommend actions for improvement, and support District and School Based Leadership Teams (DBLT/SBLT) to build the capacity of districts and schools • Office of Achievement Language Acquisition • Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Project • Office of Early Learning • Florida Center for Interactive Media • Florida Center for Reading Research • Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services • Bureau of School Improvement • Florida Center for Research-Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math • Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project • Bureau of Family and Community Outreach • Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction • Just Read, Florida!

32. Florida Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project Project Leadership 2 Project Co-Directors 1 Project Leader Secondary Coordinator 4 staff Inter-project Coord. 2 Evaluation Specialists Staff Support Personnel PS/RtI North Region PS/RtI Regional Coordinator, PS/RtI Regional Facilitator 2 DA RtI Specialists PS/RtI Central Region PS/RtI Regional Coordinator, PS/RtI Regional Facilitator 3 DA RtI Specialists nDA Region 1 nDA Region 2 nDA Region 3 nDA Region 4 nDA Region 5 nPS/RtI Pilot Districts PS/RtI South Region PS/RtI Regional Coordinator, PS/RtI Regional Facilitator 2 DA RtI Specialists

33. Florida Developments-Focus of the Work • Work now focused on District-Based Leadership Teams • Work focused on building district capacity to implement within their districts with their own staff • Training of trainers focused on training district teams to assume responsibility for school-based training • Statewide initiative focusing on application to secondary level • Statewide initiative validating effective coaching practices within an RtI implementation model • Development of a Program Evaluation model for local district use

34. Florida Developments-Organizational • Florida PS/RtI and Florida PBS Project are merging “functionally” • Inter-Project Coordinator to ensure communication, collaboration and consistent training/implementation practices • Inclusion of Literacy and Mathematics Specialists in PS/RtI Project

35. Strengths and Barriers • STRENGTHS • Strong state support • Supporting regulations • Adequate resources • Cross-Discipline collaboration • District understanding of the “reality” of implementing RtI • Pilot district and statewide direct training completed • Strong program evaluation model with excellent data • BARRIERS • Collateral effects of a “top down” approach • District Leadership Teams focused on school implementation without adequate district support • District Leadership teams very VARIABLE in their skills/understanding of how to scale up at the district level • Focus on EBD/SLD eligibility challenges system-wide (rather than sped) implementation

36. The RtI Model:Outcomes

37. Outcomes:State Level

38. Percent Annual Growth, Students with Disabilities and Selected Disability Programs 2004-05 through 2009-10

39. 2010 FCAT MathStudents with Disabilities Grades 3-10

40. Pilot vs Comparison SchoolsLevel 3 or Higher on FCAT2006/7-2008/91 Year of Baseline, 1 Year of Implementation

41. Outcomes:District Level

44. Outcomes:School Level

45. Elementary

48. Seven Oaks

50. Middle School