Setting the SSTAGE for Great Performances

 

Lynn LeLoup Pennington  Education Consultant, President of SSTAGE

and Frank Smith

  GaDOE, Psychological Services & SST

Origins of SST1983 - sobering national report,

“A Nation At Risk” caused all states

to rethink how they delivered education.

Education reform

began in earnest.

One change was to encourage more building-level problem solving instead of the existing district-centered approach.

1984 – to conclude Marshall vs. Georgia,

~with disproportion the central issue~

the State of GA committed to federal court that a Student Support Team (SST) would be established in every Georgia public school-- about 35 states were already doing this.

Original purpose of SST was to prevent inappropriate

referrals to

Special Education

How?

By solving as many common learning and behavior problems as possible in the regular classroom.

QBE- Quality Basic Education Act (1985) was a funding law. SST was a parallel judicial action, i.e., a promise to federal court.

It has never been state-funded.

Developments in re: SST

Emergence of Section 504 on behalf of students with ADHD-- Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder:

1991

National controversy over use of Ritalin for medicating students with ADHD -- US Dept of Education issued directive stating that most ADHD students should be educated in the regular classroom with appropriate accommodations.

It cited Section 504 of the

1973 Rehabilitation Act

(its antidiscrimination section) as the legal rationale.

SST was one logical structure to manage this.

2000

Establishment of SST consortia around the state

2005

-Professional Standards Commission (PSC)

was convinced to adopt course standards for an endorsement for SST Coordinator.

- State rolls out new curriculum standards.

SST Coordinator Standards

Category 1: Problem Solving– STANDARD 1: The Learner– STANDARD 2: Problem Solving Process– STANDARD 3: Assessment and Data Analysis– STANDARD 4: Instruction

Category 2: Team Process and Management– STANDARD 5: Facilitation and Communication– STANDARD 6: Legal and Regulatory Requirements– STANDARD 7: Technology

Category 3: Leadership, School Improvement and Change

– STANDARD 8: Collaborative Consultation – STANDARD 9: Professional Learning and Staff Development– STANDARD 10: Use of SST Data for Classroom, School and

System Improvement

2006

- State adopts “Pyramid Of Interventions” concept. SST is now officially Tier 3.

- Metro SST Consortium now drawing participants

from more than 30 counties including Athens, Gainesville, Dalton, Carrollton, Columbus, Milledgeville and Lee County.

Decision made to pursue forming a statewide professional SST association.

2007

February: SSTAGE incorporated

September:

Here we are!

TIER 1 STANDARDS BASED CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION/LEARNING

All students participate in instruction that is:-In the general education classroom

-Standards-based -Differentiated

- Evidenced-based •Guided by progress monitoring & balanced assessment

-Planned to address all developmental domains (academic, communication/language, social etc.)

TIER 2: NEEDS BASED INSTRUCTION/LEARNING:STANDARD INTERVENTION PROTOCOLS

Targeted students participate in instruction that:-Is different from Tier 1

-Uses established intervention protocols -Provides enhanced opportunities for extended learning

-Uses flexible, small groups-Includes more frequent progress monitoring

-Addresses needs in all developmental domains (academic,communication/language, social etc.)

TIER 3: SST DRIVEN INSTRUCTION/LEARNINGTargeted students participate in:

-Individual assessment-Tailored interventions to

respond to their needs-Frequent formative assessments

-Consideration for specially designed instruction only when data indicates a need (e.g. gifted or

special education services)

TIER 4SPECIALLY DESIGNED

INSTRUCTION/LEARNINGTargeted students participate in:

-Specialized programs -Adapted content, methodology,

or instructional delivery-GPS access/extension

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PYRAMID OF INTERVENTIONS

Georgia Department of Education

Offices of Curriculum and Instruction and Teacher/Student Support

TIER 3: SST DRIVEN INSTRUCTION & LEARNING

When the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) gave ‘birth’ to the Student Achievement Pyramid of Interventions, it established a new and ‘enlightened’ context to understand and improve SST.

SST is now inextricably embedded within a tiered delivery system of progressive learning supports, services and assessments that are modified based on the student’s response to the intervention

Inte

nsity

of I

nter

vent

ion

& P

rogr

ess

Mon

itorin

g

The lights are going out and the curtain is closing on the view that…

• SST is an isolated process and set of procedures• teacher judgment or frustration should be the

primary criteria for entry to the SST• school policies or procedures should

automatically place students in SST who fail a course or don’t pass a state-level assessment

• vague descriptions of student problems and unmeasured student performance will suffice

• This change has turned the spotlight on the processes of SST…particularly its problem solving process

• Data-driven decision making needs to take center stage

Data-based problem solving is not limited to Tiers 3 and 4.

It MUST BE the process that guides decision making at every tier!

Otherwise, we will miss the opportunity to have an integrated and coordinated approach to service delivery across the pyramid.

? ?

Problem solving is a continuous and cyclical process which repeats at each tier, but in a more formal and systematic way as it moves up the pyramid in response to the severity of the problem and the intensity of the supports required to address the needs of the student.

Data-driven problem solving is the engine within the pyramid which provides educators with the power and know-how to make informed decisions at each tier.

• Data-based problem solving represents the core conceptual basis of addressing students’ academic and behavioral problems whether we are focusing on …– the entire school– a single grade level– one classroom– a small group

–one student

If data-based problem solving is found at every tier, what’s different about it at SST?

• At SST the problem solving process

–Focuses on one student

–Increases parent/family involvement

–Involves a cross-disciplinary approach

–Investigates the concern (i.e., the discrepancy in performance or behavior) in greater depth and with greater precision…

…and answers the questions:

• What does/doesn’t the student know? • What can the student do?• What is the student not doing that he should be doing? • How does the student think and learn? • What strategies does/doesn’t the student use?• Why is this happening? • Is there a reason (or function) to explain why this concern

exists? • Why has the Tier 2, scientifically-based intervention not

been successful for this student?

Problem solving in a nutshell…

SEESEE - PLANPLAN - DODO - CHECKCHECK

The SST Coordinator Standards articulated a problem solving process

that was data-driven

1. Identify problem (descriptive & measurable) 2. Gather information and analyze data3. Establish instructional/behavioral objectives4. Develop an educational plan (which specifies

teaching/learning strategies and ongoing assessment measures)

5. Implement plan6. Evaluate plan periodically, adjust as needed

Source: Student Support Team Coordinator Standards, PSC Endorsement (2005)

Step 1 – Identify the Problem Step 2 – Gather Information and Analyze Data

Step 6 – Evaluate the Plan

Step 3 – Establish Objective/Goal

Step 4 – Develop an Educational & Monitoring Plan

Step 5 - Implement Plan

The Problem Solving Process…The Problem Solving Process…Data-Driven Decision MakingData-Driven Decision Making

The problem solving process is not about proving what’s wrong with the

student.

• It’s about finding out

how to teach the student

so he can learn.

• It’s discovering who that

child is …as a LEARNER.

Who guides the processat each of the tiers and who will answer these questions?

• Are our students learning?

• How do we know they are learning?

• Which students are not learning?

• Why aren’t they learning?

• What do they need in order to learn?

• What must we do to provide it? (who, when, where and for how long)

Collaborative Teams and Partnerships Tier 1 Teams and support personnel

Grade level teams? Department teams? Professional Learning Communities?

Tier 2 Teams and support personnel Grade level teams? Professional Learning Communities? RTI Teams?

Tier 3 Student Support Teams Other decision-making teams?

Tier 4 IEP/Gifted Teams

What are we doing to engage parents and families at the different tiers?

• Parenting • Communicating• Learning at Home• Decision-Making • Advocacy • Collaborating with

Community

Is one of these team members a parent?

Where do we begin?• Take stock of what you already have in place.

In other words, what’s your baseline or entry level in terms of…– Perceptions, attitudes and understanding?– Learning and instructional practices at Tier 1?– Assessment and progress monitoring tools?– Supplemental interventions (Tier 2) and which

students are targeted? – Problem solving teams?– Roles and responsibilities?– Resources?

Do not oversimplify the innovation and the process. Some people think they understand what to do, when in reality they do not grasp the complexity and the intricacies of the innovation, in particular the data-based problem solving. (Nebraska DOE)

Greater Expectations and Challenges for SST:

• Improving SST functioning, stability, data usage

• Establishing Best Practices, incl. behavior issues

• Fitting smoothly into the Pyramid of Interventions

• Acclimating to new IDEA requirements

• Using evidence-based interventions with fidelity

• Better results with English Language Learners

Problem Solving is Professional Learning

• When teachers use the data-driven problem solving in a culture of teamwork, teachers’ skills grow and their professional knowledge deepens.

• Problem solving connects teacher learning to student learning. (Deojay & Pennington, 2004)

Lessons Learned from Student Support Teams with References from the Stage

• Be well prepared for the opening curtain. This is not a dress rehearsal!

• Good lighting, comfortable seats and refreshments can greatly improve a performance.

• Having a playbill helps each new audience know what the performance is all about and who plays what role.

• This is not a cast of one, so it’s okay if you can’t sing, dance and act all at the same time.

• Listen carefully to the stories of others because you can learn a great deal from their experiences.

• Body language, eye contact and timing enhances engagement with the audience.

• Everyone has an important role to play, even if some have bigger parts and louder voices.

• Don’t lose sight of why you are there, even if the main character is not on the stage with you.

• For the production to be first class, there’s a reason that there’s a director, producer, techs and coaches – all working together.

• When the critics review the show, don’t take it personally. Use the feedback to make improvements.

• It’s always nice to end with a round of applause (or thank you) when the performance has met your expectations.

It’s time to set the stage for great performances by…

Students

Parents

Educators

The Student Support Team Association for Georgia Educators provides leadership

through collaboration, learning and

advocacy to enhance student competence.

www.sstage.org

References:• Brown-Chidsey, Rachel & Steege, Mark W. (2005) Response to intervention:

principals and strategies for effective instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.• Callender, Wayne and Ruby, Susan Getting Started with Response to Intervention

(RTI): Big Ideas and Essential Components, www.k12.wa.us/conferences/summerinstitute2006/Materials/CallenderW2/OSPIhandouts1.pdf

• Chalfant, J.C., Pysh, M.V. & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85-95.

• Daly, Edward & Glover, Todd , Response to intervention/data based problem solving, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, http://rtinebraska.unl.edu/documents/powerpoint/module1.ppt#256,1,Response%20to%20Intervention

• Deojay, T.R., & Pennington, L.L. (2004) Content: Connecting data, professional development, and student achievement. In Powerful designs for professional learning. Easton, L. (ed.), Oxford, OH, National Staff Development Council

• DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Karhanek, G. (2004), Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN, National Educational Service

• Response-to-Intervention Technical Assistance Document, Nebraska Department of Education and the University of Nebraska (June 2006)

To contact us:

Lynn L. PenningtonOffice: 770-752-9941lynchpenn@aol.com

Frank SmithOffice: 404-656-5805fsmith@doe.k12.ga.us

©2007 All Rights Reserved