windram, 2009 secondary rti implementation & facilitation holly windram st. croix river...
TRANSCRIPT
Windram, 2009
Secondary RtI Implementation& Facilitation
Holly Windram
St. Croix River Education District
Windram, 2009
"A journey of a thousand
miles begins with a single
step." -Confucius
Windram, 2009
Why RtI at the Secondary Level?
“Shouldn’t all the Special Ed kids be identified already?”“I’m here to teach the kids who show up to learn.”“I have to get through my content and you want me to teach
[insert 1 million other things here]”“Won’t I have to do more work?”“How is this relevant to me - today - right now?”“It’s just another initiative.”“When is lunch?”“Is this workshop over yet?”
Windram, 2009
Windram, 2009
Why RtI at the Secondary Level
• NCLB
• IDEA 2004
• Prevention
We need more options
Windram, 2009
What’s so different about Secondary?
Windram, 2009
Specific Challenges for RtI at Secondary Schools
1) More kids!
2) Multiple feeder schools
3) More staff!
4) Decrease in individualized attention for students from staff
Windram, 2009
Specific Challenges for RtI at Secondary Schools
5) Teachers have curriculum specializations6) Emphasis on knowledge dissemination and
independent skill application.
Windram, 2009
Specific Challenges for RtI at Secondary Schools
7) Student skill and performance discrepancies are greater.
8) Students are expected to independently self-monitor, organize, and be responsible for their own learning
9) Decrease of parent involvement.
Ask the right question . . .
The question is not,
Is it possible to education all children well?
but, rather,
Do we want it badly enough?
Deborah Meier in Schmoker (2008)
Windram, 2009
Chisago Lakes High School• 1200 students
• 10% special education
• 8% free/reduced lunch
• 1% English Language Learning
• Four, 85 minute blocks
• 98% graduation rate
• Credit increase: 29 by 2009-10
Windram, 2009
02-03 School Year:Catalyst for Change
• Incoming 9th graders.
• Top concerns: academic skills, social interactions, and work completion issues
Sound familiar?
Windram, 2009
Ninth grade
“If you want to reshape high school, start by changing ninth grade.”
“. . . success or failure in ninth grade is a pivotal indicator of whether or not a student drops out.”
Windram, 2009
Timeline
Year 1 (03-04): Problem-Solving Team and Process
Year 2 (04-05): Intervention Integrity and STP Intervention development
Year 3 (05-06): RtI English 9 classYear 4 (06-07): RtI English 10, CLHS
“Check & Connect”Year 5 (07-08): See table
Windram, 2009
CLHS Three Tier RtI Model: ExamplesLevel Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s)
TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs ODRs MTS
TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs ODRs
TIER 2 Advisement Correctives (2x term) (STP) RtI 9 English class (STP) RtI 10 English class (STP) English 9 skinny classes (STP) Pre-Algebra (STP) Problem solving interventions CLHS “Check & Connect” (STP)
Grades/Credits CBM Reading & Writing CBM Reading & Writing Grades CBM Math Applications CBMs, Grades/Credits, MAPs Grades/Credits, “mini” SEI
TIER I Advisement Grade Checks (2x term) 9th grade common expectations (planners) 9th grade Link Crew NCA Goal instruction
Grades/Credits Grades/Credits Grades/Credits SEI MAZE
Windram, 2009
Timeline for decision-making
Start with
DATA
Windram, 2009
CLHS: Problem Solving
• Student Assistance Team (Regular Education) = Problem-Solving Team
• Problem-Solving Team Members: Assistant Principal, guidance counselors, school psychologist, school nurse, police liaison officer, truancy prevention, chemical health, and mental health.
• Weekly, Monday AM• 1x month data reviews with small group: AP,
Counselors, School Psych., truancy, RtI Coach
SCRED Problem-Solving Model
1. Problem Identification
What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?
2. Problem Analysis
Why is the problem occurring?
3. Plan Development
What is the goal?What is the intervention plan to address this goal?
How will progress be monitored?
4. PlanImplementation
How will implementation integrity be ensured?
5. Plan Evaluation
Is the intervention plan effective?
Windram, 2009
Problem-Solving Process at CLHS
Step 1: Student referred to SAT/Problem-Solving Team via counselors from teachers, parents, etc.
Step 2: Problem Identification data are collectedStep 3: Team prioritizes problem & decides next step:
– Level 1: Grade Level Team or Consultation/follow-up– Level 2: Support Staff Consultation – Level 3: Refer for STP– Level 4: Extended Problem-Solving Team referral– Refer to SST for consideration of SE evaluation
Windram, 2009
Who collects the data?
Attendance/grades/credits Counselors Educational History Counselors/School Psych Health review Counselors/School Nurse Observation School Psych/Paraprofessional Interviews: Parent, teacher(s), student Counselors, School Psych TIES Web Portal: CBM benchmarks (rdg, wtg, math) 3x year, K-8 NWEA MAPs (rdg, math) 2x year, Fall & Spring MCAIIs/GRAD
Counselors/School Psych/AP
Current CBM Paraprofessional
Windram, 2009
Data Reviews
• RtI students and Alt English and Math: 2x per term– Teachers identify students of concern prior to meeting– Graph review and problem-solving done as a team– RtI Teachers, Principal, Asst. Principal, 1 or more
counselors, School Psychologist
• 1x month for students in Problem-Solving– CBM graphs– Check & Connect data
Windram, 2009
Critical features of remedial literacy instruction at the secondary level
• Effective professional development• Effective instructional tools incl. core curriculum and
instructional methodology• System reorganization and support• Formative and summative assessment• Building/classroom climate that fosters high student
engagement• Committee/Team
(e.g., Allain, 2008; Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2004; Diamond, 2004)
Windram, 2009
RtI English classes
• Daily, one 85 minute block, all year– DOUBLE the instructional time!!!!– Typical English 9 & 10: 1 block, 1 semester
• Reading & writing interventions 30-40 min. daily• Core English 9 & 10 curriculum taught
– Modified pace – Adapted based on students’ needs
• CBM Reading & Writing data collected on every student• Data reviews 2x per quarter
Windram, 2009
Who are the teachers
• English Teachers: Enthusiastic, experience with “at-risk” learners
• Intervention Specialists
• These were already existing positions
Windram, 2009
How Students Are Selected RtI Eng 9
• Spring of 8th grade, teachers introduce class to students and families
• Not required
• About 18-24 students per year
Windram, 2009
How students are selectedMultiple data sources and indicators of student
engagement:• CBM scores• MAPs• State level reading tests• Attendance and grades• Current 8th grade class enrollment• 8th grade problem-solving status• Eighth grade teacher input and recommendation• No specific/formal entrance or exit criteria
Windram, 2009
RtI English 9: First quarter
• Three goals:1. Build relationships with students2. Establish regular cycle of CBM data collection &
review. Set up graphs.3. Apply problem-solving model for intervention
decisions: what and for whom
• Professional Development
Windram, 2009
First quarter supplemental instruction
Whole group academic interventions for reading fluency and writing mechanics– Daily Oral Language (DOL) – Six Minute Solution (Adams & Brown, 2003) Peer tutoring, reading fluency building intervention. Same-level pairs, students engage in repeated readings of 1-
minute nonfiction passages as their partners note the number of words read correctly.
Windram, 2009
RtI English Classes
• End of first quarter: Identify additional needs at class, small group, and individual level.
• Rest of the year:– On-going data collection and reviews– Problem-solving for class, small group, and individual level– Adapt supplemental instruction for basic reading and writing
skills based on student need
Windram, 2009
SCRED Target Scores
CBM ORF: 170 words read correct
CBM Correct Word Sequences: 64
MAP R RIT: 226
MAP M RIT: 235 – Algebra I
Windram, 2009
RtI Eng 9 ORF WRC Avg Growth
2
11
3
11
3
7
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08
Number of students
Series1
Windram, 2009
RtI Eng 9 CWS Average Growth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08
Number of students
Series1
Windram, 2009
RtI Eng 9 Achieved MAP R Benchmark
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08
Number of Students
Series1
Windram, 2009
RtI Eng 9 MAP R RIT Growth
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th
Cohort and Grade
Amount of RIT Growth
Series1
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
What happened here?
Windram, 2009
Special Education: SLD
SCRED districts use a SRBI process for SLD eligibility.
CLHS:
05-06: 1 student
06-07: 1 student
07-08: 0 students
Percent of Students making adequate growth on MAP: Grade 9 English programs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms
RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms
2005-06 2006-07
Percent of Students
Windram, 2009
Case Study: Jimmy
Windram, 2009
Case Study: Jimmy - 7th Grade Level
Windram, 2009
Case Study: Jimmy - 8th Grade Level
Windram, 2009
Other Tier 2 Programming
• Interventions with certified staff• Master schedule for interventions• Resource Room support staff progress monitoring• CLHS “Check & Connect” at two levels:
– Correctives (Tier 1 & 2)– CLHS “Check & Connect” = modified Check & Connect (
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/check_conn/index.asp;
Christianson, et al.) and Behavior Education Program (Crone
et al., 2004)
Windram, 2009
Program Failure Rates
28% 29%
12%
35%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 4
Terms
Percentage of Classes Failed
Windram, 2009
Program Referral Rates
17
21
13
28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4
Terms
Number of Referrals
Windram, 2009
What is the influence on schoolwide outcomes
????
Windram, 2009
16.5
14 14.3
11
10.1
22.7
13.7
16.1
14.1
9.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
School Year
Percent
% Failure Rate Term 1 ALL
% Failure Rate Term 1 9th Grade
Windram, 2009
CLHS School-wide MAZE data
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006
# correct on MAZE
12
11
10
9
Windram, 2009
Chisago Lakes Middle School• 816 students
• 10% special education
• 15% free/reduced lunch
• 1% English Language Learning
• Seven period day
• Daily homeroom - CORE Connect
Windram, 2009
CLMS Three Tier RtI Model: Examples
Level Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s) TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs
TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs
ODRs TIER 2 RtI Communications (gr. 6-8) (STP)
RtI Math (gr. 6-8) (STP) CLMS “Check & Connect” (STP)
CBM Reading & Writing CBM Math Applications Grades/Credits, DPRs
TIER I CORE Connect Wall of Fame Good Cat Caught in the Act Wildcat Eye on Success Golden Plunger
Grades/ODRs Grades/Credits SEI
Windram, 2009
0 %
2 0 %
4 0 %
6 0 %
8 0 %
1 0 0 %
3 . 5 0 %
8 . 3 0 %
8 8 . 2 0 %
Windram, 2009
So you want to implement RtI at the Secondary Level?
Windram, 2009
Start with school-wide literacy
and/or positive behavior support
Windram, 2009
Start small
Windram, 2009
More time!
5-8 years for secondary settings
(
Windram, 2009
Be Prepared to Disrupt the Master Schedule!
Windram, 2009
Student Involvement and Relationships
Windram, 2009
Do you have data?
• Screening• Formative
• Summative• Reliable & Valid
Windram, 2009
Schedule data reviews
Windram, 2009
What is your decision-making process?
Problem-Solving Process
Is everyone trained?
Windram, 2009
When do comprehension and vocabulary instruction
happen?
“ . . . reading comprehension depends on knowledge and vocabulary. It’s an organic and cumulative process.”
Windram, 2009
Teaching content?
SIM strategies
Strategic Instruction Model
http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/
Routines to help bring order and
priority to the content
Windram, 2009
Administrator is a leader for change
Do it. Do with baby steps or not, but do it.
“If, as a school leader, you wait to improve [insert whatever you want here] until you have total buy-in from the school community, then your school will be the last to change.”
Windram, 2009
Is the administrator(s) an instructional leader?
Windram, 2009
Staff Buy-In• Start with a few motivated, charismatic staff• Make in-person connections (emails do not cut it)• Give educators tools for remedial/basic skill instruction
for academics and PBS• Create time for their involvement, e.g., no bus or
hallway duty, schedule team meetings during prep, etc.• For every 1 new task/initiative added, take 2 away.
and above all . . .
Windram, 2009
Show them the
Windram, 2009
Implementation integrity is essential
Windram, 2009
A closing thought . . .
“We have to teach the children we have;
Not the children we used to have
Not the children we want to have
Not the children we dream to have”- Woodrow Wilson
Windram, 2009
Facilitation
Windram, 2009
Meeting facilitation - another role for school psychologists
• Building RtI team
• Grade level teaming
Windram, 2009
PurposeGrade Level Data Review, Analysis,
and Intervention Planning
Define Tier Cut-Off Scores
& Review Triangle
Data
Group Students According to Tiers & Needs
Review Interventions
& Match to Students’
Needs
Review Resources &
Match to Interventions
Create Updated Intervention
Plan for Each Tier
Grade Level Meetings
Courtesy of D204Courtesy of D204
Plan
Implementation
Windram, 2009
Building RtI teams
• The problem solving process needs nurturing
• You can use agenda or forms to guide the process
• Well-oiled teams may not need either after working together and solving problems
Windram, 2009
Clearly defined roles of team members
Windram, 2009
Think, Pair, Share
What are qualities of good meeting facilitators?
Windram, 2009
Facilitation “Quiz”
Windram, 2009
Agendas
Windram, 2009
Problem Solving
• As a school psych you can be very instrumental in – developing a well-defined problem
identification statement – as well as helping teams through problem
analysis and generating relevant hypotheses for developing a plan
Windram, 2009
Student: ____________________________________________ Date Form Completed: ____________________________________
St e p 3: Ind icate selecte d hypo t hesi s (cir cle or bold type ). Selecte d hypo t hesi s mu st ha ve conve r gen t da t a to suppor t inc ludi n g qua n titat ive da t a.
S tep 1: Lis t al l h ypothes is regar d in g caus e or func t ion of pri oritized probl em:
S tep 2: Lis t al l rele van t dat a t o suppo r t or refute ea ch hypo t hesi s lis ted
HYPOTHESES
R REVIEW
I INTERVIEW
O OBSERVE
T TEST
I
INSTRUCTION
1.
2.
3.
Instructional approaches, pacing, dif ficulty, class schedule, attendance, lesson plans
Expectations, alignment of instruction and curriculum, preferred practices, teachers philosophical orientation
Effective teaching practice, evidence of teacher expectations, modification of materials, classroom routines and behavior management
Aggregated peer performance on class assessments, class standing on district or statewide assessments, Checklists and questionnaires.
C
CURRICULUM
1.
2.
3.
Permanent student products, scope and sequence of lessons, Curriculum materials, books, worksheets, curriculum guides
District policy regarding adoption and use of curriculum materials, philosophical orientating of curriculum
Alignment of curriculum and materials, use of mandated curriculum, use of modified materials, assignments, assessments
Level of assignments and curriculum diff iculty
E
ENVIRONMENT
1.
2.
3.
Reports about school rules, class size, policy on disruptive behavior, peer’s work
Classroom routines, rules, behavior management plans, expectations
Physical environment, interaction patt erns, opportunity to learn, distractions,
Classroom environment scales (TIES), Aggregated peer performance on class assessments
L
LEARNER
1.
2.
3.
Health records, student work, teacher intervention records
Int erviewees perception of the problem, significance to student and peers, patt erns of behavior, current knowledge and skill
Present levels of performance, targets for instruction, nature and dimensions of target behavior, response to interventions, interaction patterns
CBM, classroom tests, norm-referenced tests, self-reports
Windram, 2009
Let’s do one together
Windram, 2009
BREAK