secondary systems overview what to know before venturing out of bounds orrti project january 15,...
TRANSCRIPT
Secondary Systems Overview
What to Know Before Venturing Out of Bounds
OrRTI ProjectJanuary 15, 2009
Objectives:
Provide an overview of secondary systems requirements
Build background and common language for those less familiar with RTI
Share some exciting data to get you pumped up!
Multi-tiered Instruction & RTI
Multi-tiered, Research-based Core Curriculum & Interventions
Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring
StandardizedDecision Rules &
Procedures
Integrity of Implementation and
SustainabilityRTI
Identification of Learning Disabilities
Effective Teaming &
Problem Solving
The Big Picture Leadership at all levels Teaming Use of a research based core reading
curriculum Universal screening Implementation of research based interventions Progress monitoring Policy and procedure development
(standardization) Professional development including fidelity of
implementation.
LeadershipTop-Down
Leadership priority Strategic planning Budget planning Support and buy-in for systemic,
consistent programs School improvement plans
Bottom-up School literacy committees
participated in training and planning Teacher-teams identified key
literacy strategies for training and roll-out
Literacy committees reviewed curriculum and selected intervention programs
TeamingMembers might
include… Principal Instructional
Coordinator Counselor Special Ed Rep ELL Rep Alt Ed Content Area or
Cluster Teams
Core Program Evidence-based
English/Language Arts curriculum
Common agreements around content and standards
Literacy strategies taught and utilized across content areas
Universal Screening Universal screening occurs for ALL students
at least three times per year (fall, winter, spring)
Screening identifies which students are making progress in the core curriculum (80%) and which are in need of further support (20%).
Data should be used to start conversations about:If the core is meeting the needs of most
students (including most students in each subgroup)
Which students need additional intervention
Interventions Research-based Increase the intensity of instruction
More timeSmaller groups
Regularly monitored Delivered as designed
Progress Monitoring All students
receiving interventions should be progress monitored
Frequency is determined by district decision rules (twice per month
in TTSD secondary schools)
Progress monitoring with MazeIntervention Progress Monitoring
4 5 68
4
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sep-0
7
Oct
-07
Nov
-07
Dec
-07
Jan-
08
Feb-
08
Mar
-08
Apr-
08
May
-08
Jun-
08
Monitoring/ Correct
Baseline/ Benchmark
Aimline
Trendline
Grade: 8
Teacher Name: Goldman
School: School of Dan
Probe Name: Maze
Cor
rect
Res
pon
ses/
Min
.
David Putnam
Intervention: Soar
3 to 4 Data-points Below the
Aimline
Intervention Change:
“Language C” with Randall
Policy and Procedure Development
The RTI process replaces a standardized (IQ) test, RTI also requires standard administration
Districts adopt common procedures for doing this work:
ProtocolsDecision RulesFormsSpEd Procedures
Professional Development
Topics:Core curriculum and instruction InterventionsAssessmentTeamingData-based decision makingSpecial Education
The Big Picture Leadership at all levels Teaming Use of a research based core reading
curriculum Universal screening Implementation of research based interventions Progress monitoring Policy and procedure development
(standardization) Professional development including fidelity of
implementation.
Next Steps in TTSD EBIS Decision Rules need to be evaluated
(screening/intensifying/exiting) Evaluation of current Core curricula – are
all content teachers consistently using the literacy strategies in their classes?
Ratcheting up of New Teacher Program Evaluate fidelity across classrooms and
schools Implement Team Coaching Model with
Curriculum & Instruction TOSAs
Is All This Work Really Worth It?
Progress monitoring tools:Maze-CBMGRADE+Measures within curriculum
Program evaluation:OAKSGRADE+GradesOffice Discipline Referrals Attendance
Average Office Discipline Referrals by Grades for Students in High School Reading Interventions 2006-07
0.25 0.3
2.1
0.66
0.91
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
A B C D F
Grades
Average Absences by Grades Earned for All TTSD Students In Secondary Literacy Interventions
3
4 4
5
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
GradesColumn 1 3 4 4 5 8
A B C D F
n = 1755
n = 1572
n = 1223
n = 721
n = 756
Ab
sen
ce
s
Student Grades by Average Correct Responses on 3-Minute Maze
37.5437.5636.2
32.1
24.9
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
A B C D F
Grades
Racial Proportionality of Students in
Reading Interventions vs. TTSD Student Body (Grades 6-12)2007-08 Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation
1%4% 4%
41%
49%
1%1%
7%
2%
13%
1%
76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Students in Reading Interventions 1% 4% 4% 41% 49% 1%
All TTSD 1% 7% 2% 13% 76% 1%
American Indian/ Alask
a Native
Asian/ Pacific Islander
Black Latino White Unknown
Special Program Proportionality of Students in Reading Interventions vs. TTSD Student Body (Grades 6-12)
2007-08 Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation
49%
23%
9%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Students in Reading Interventions 49% 23%
All TTSD Grades 6-12 9% 7%
Special Education English Language Learners
All Stu
dent
s in Inter
vent
ions
MS L
angu
age!
Soar to
Succ
ess
HS Lan
guag
e
HS Stra
tegies
Expected Gain
Average Maze Gain
5.90
5.00
8.93
3.70 3.94
2.532.55 2.59
2.552.35
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Average Maze-CBM Gain vs. Expected Gain ~ By Curriculum 2007-08 Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation
Expected Gain
Average Maze Gain
2007-08 Change on Grade+ Assessment(1st Semester pre-test/ post-test)
31
34
37
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Pre-Test Semester 1 3 31
Post-Test Semester 1 4 37
Stanine Percentile
Intact Student Performance on OAKS Reading 2006-07* to 2007-08 by Intervention Program
Secondary Literacy Program Evaluation
11%
2%
9%
13%
22%
32%
35%
30%
23%
8%
38%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
*High School students' 8th grade state assessment scores (2005-06) used as baseline for 07-08 results
% Meet/ Exceed 2005-06 (Prior to Intervention 11% 2% 9% 13%
% Meet/ Exceed 2006-07 22% 23% 32% 35%
% Meet/ Exceed 2007-08 19% 8% 30% 38%
All Students in Interventions Language Soar to Success HS Strategies*
Average RIT Gains on the 2006-07 Oregon Statewide Assessment Secondary Literacy Initiative - Program Evaluation
2.25
3.993.944.28
5.43
6.44
5.33
4.224.21
8.93
6.14
4.24
1.6
2.65
3.56
7.67
0
2
4
6
8
10
6th 7th 8th 10th
All MIM
All TTSD
MiM Did Not Meet
Secondary Lit Students
The Growth Target: Want to Beat the
Average RIT Gain in Mastery in Motion
for Students that Did Not Meet