How to Move a Mountain : RtI, Problem-solving, and Systems Change

1. How to Move a Mountain: RtI, Problem-solving, and Systems Change Ed O’Connor, PhD – Lead Consultant John H Faust – Executive Director Midwest Instructional Leadership Council Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

2. Objectives for Today • Identify and discuss challenges to implementation of sustainable systems that increase outcomes for all students • Identify and understand factors that serve as barriers and resistors to meaningful and sustained systems change • Identify key systems change issues that are critical to address • Identify key factors in implementation • Culture, beliefs, and expectations • Building and sustaining capacity • Routines and processes • Evaluation of intervention processes and outcomes and implementation processes and outcomes Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

3. About Us • Nonprofit organization formed June 2010 • Focus of the organization is “building and sustaining capacity for improving the achievement of all children” • Pursuing that mission by: • Professional development conferences and institutes • Embedded coaching and support • Bridging research and practice Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

4. Systems Change Not Another Initiative • Systems view and analysis is necessary to promote sustainable school improvements • Analysis of practices and beliefs is required • Self-assessment is difficult • Objective standards for systems components are necessary Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

5. Kotter’s 8 Most Common Mistakes in the Change Process Allowing too much complacency Failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition Underestimating the power of vision Under-communicating the power of vision Permitting structural and cultural obstacles to block the change process Failing to create short-term wins Declaring victory too soon Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the culture Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

6. The 3 Stages of RtI Implementation • Consensus Building • The stage where RtI concepts are communicated broadly to implementers and the foundational “whys” are taught, discussed and embraced. • Infrastructure Building • The stage where districts and sites examine their implementations against the critical components of RtI, find aspects that are being implemented well and gaps that need to be addressed. Infrastructure building centers around closing these practice gaps. • Implementation • The stage where the structures and supports are put in place to support, stabilize and institutionalize RtI practices into a new “business as usual.” Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

7. Systems Change Model for RtIBatsche and Tilly Consensus Belief is shared Vision is agreed upon Implementation requirements understood Infrastructure Development Regulations Training/Technical Assistance Model (e.g., Standard Protocol) Tier I and II intervention systems E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan Data Management Technology support Decision-making criteria established Implementation Curtis, M. J., Cohen, R. & Castillo, J. (2009). Facilitating Implementation of PS/RtI Using Systems Change Principles. NASP Convention: Boston, MA Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

8. Setting the Stage - Phases Midwest Instructional Leadership Council 3/3/10 8

9. miLc System Analysis Tool and Process • Elements of “Highly Effective Schools” • Vision • Leadership • Instruction/Intervention • Decision-making • Resource allocation • NASDSE Blueprints • Kansas Multi-tier System of Support • Wallace, Blasé, Fixsen, Naaom • Marzano and Waters Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

10. miLc System Analysis Tools and Process • Stages of Scale-up • Batsche and Tilly • Level of Implementation • Not Implementing • Consensus Building • Infrastructure Building • Implementation • Sustainability • Actions Needed Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

11. Culture, Beliefs, and Expectations • I believe that all children have the ability to achieve high academic and behavioral standards? • Students with high incidence disabilities receiving special education services are capable of achieving grade level benchmarks/standards? • All students can achieve grade level benchmarks if the have sufficient support? Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

12. Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

13. Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

14. Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

15. Culture, Beliefs, and Expectations • General education teachers should implement more differentiated and flexible instructional practices to address the needs of a more diverse student body? • Prevention and early intervention strategies in schools would result in fewer referrals to problem-solving teams and placements in special education? • In our district or school, staff who disagree about instructional approaches openly and professional discuss their concerns? Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

17. What Does This Mean to Educational Leaders? • Are beliefs about students and their abilities the “reality” or are there other explanations to which educational leaders should attend? • In what ways will the disconnect between beliefs that are requisite in effective response to intervention systems of educational service delivery for all students and the requisite practices hinder implementation efforts? Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

18. What Does This Mean to Educational Leaders? The public school establishment is one of the most stubbornly intransigent forces on the planet. It is full of people and organizations dedicated to protecting established programs and keeping this just the way they are. Administrators talk of reform even as they are circling the wagons to fend off change, or preparing to outflank innovations. (Bennett, Finn, & Cribb, 1999) Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

19. What Does This Mean to Educational Leaders? • Organizations [districts/schools] are perfectly designed to get the results they are getting. • Are you satisfied with the results that your district and/or school is getting? • Students of color? • Students with disabilities? • Students and families experiencing poverty? • Students with limited English proficiency? • Students at-risk? • How do you know? Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

20. Status Quo Versus Paradigm Shifting Questions? • Status quo questions • What program can we get this student into? • What label is best for this student? • What tests and/or assessments are best to get the result we are seeking [placement into a program or service]? • Paradigm Shifting Questions • How will we respond when students enter our doors unequally prepared for success? • What do students need in order to achieve high expectations and how will we get those resources to those students? • Is our focus laser-like or do we chase every new and shiny thing? • Do our staff possess the knowledge, skills, and support required to do the work required in the new paradigm? Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

21. Challenges to ImplementationHow Great Leaders Inspire Action Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

22. So, Does This Really Make a Difference? Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

23. Outcomes Observed Monona Grove and Monroe Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

24. School District of MonroePrimary Disability Percentages by Academic Year – Elementary Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

25. WKCE Proficient/AdvancedSchool District of Monroe Grade 3 -Reading Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

26. School District of Monroe4th Grade WKCE Proficient/Advanced: Math Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

27. School District of MonroeNumber of Special Education Referrals (Ages 6 – 21) by Academic Year Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

28. School District of MonroePercentage of Special Education Students Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

29. * 2009-10 data as of 4/5 Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

30. Implementation Time-line Full implementation: 3-5 years Entry and acceptance phase: 2-3 years Implementation with high accuracy and sustainability: 5-10 years (OSEP, 2004) Curtis, M. J., Cohen, R. & Castillo, J. (2009). Facilitating Implementation of PS/RtI Using Systems Change Principles. NASP Convention: Boston, MA Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

31. Successful Implementation Innovation x Teacher x School x Educational Policies x Purveyor = Student and School Outcomes (Wallace, Blasé, Fixsen, & Naoom, 2008) Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

32. Successful Implementation • Innovation • Clearly defined and operationalized • Clarity and operationalization are required so that the innovation can be • Taught • Learned • Supported • Teacher [Educational Professionals and Support Staff] • Well-prepared • Supported • Motivated to use the innovation • So that what occurs? • Innovation is implemented with fidelity and integrity • Desired student outcomes are achieved Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

33. Successful Implementation • School • Administration must provide leadership • Administration must be able to change school structures and functions • Administration must be supported • So that what occurs? • Teachers [educational professionals and support staff] can use and learn to use the innovation effectively • Desired student outcomes are achieved Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

34. Successful Implementation • Educational Policies • District and state policies need to be modified and aligned to support the schools’ and teachers’ effective use of the innovation • So that what occurs? • Innovations are implemented with fidelity and integrity • Unnecessary barriers to implementation are removed • Resources can be allocated to support the innovation • Desired student outcomes are achieved Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

35. Successful Implementation • Purveyor • Must be available to actively work with the school to implement the educational innovation with fidelity and good effect • So that what occurs? • To ensure the innovation is implemented with fidelity and integrity • To ensure that support is provided through the entire implementation process • To ensure that capacity is built to sustain the innovation over time • To ensure that evaluation of the innovation and implementation processes are evaluated • Desired student outcomes are achieved Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

36. Successful Implementation • Student and School Outcomes • The focus of what we do should always be on desired student outcomes • So that what occurs? • Stewardship • Quality educational opportunities are provided and supported • Improvement efforts and outcomes are aligned and supported throughout the system • Desired student outcomes are achieved Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

37. Core Implementation Components for Successful Implementation of Educational Innovations (Wallace, Blasé, Fixsen, & Naoom, 2008) Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

38. Integrated and Compensatory Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

39. Common Implementation Errors (adapted from VanDerHeyden and Tilly, 2010) Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

40. Common Implementation Errors • Lack of consensus on fundamental principles • Not understanding the framework • Lack of a systems view • We need more interventions • We have too many interventions • We do not know if it is working • We are too tired • We cannot get going • We need more staff Adapted from VanDerHeyden & Tilly, 2010 Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

41. Common Implementation Errors • Lack of consensus on fundamental principles • We can effectively teach all children • Intervene early • Multi-tier integrated model of service delivery • Problem-solving • Research-based instruction/intervention • Frequent monitoring of student progress • Decision rules based upon valid and reliable data Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

42. Common Implementation Errors • Not Understanding the framework • RtI is a framework for making data-based decisions • Critical elements include • Assessment tools and protocols • Interventions • Decision-rules • As a framework does not require specifics, but rather, thinking is required • Parameters of effectiveness for the above exist, but there are wrong answers Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

43. Common Implementation Errors • Lack of a systems view • Multiple, competing initiatives are occurring • No one is sure who is in charge • Highly variable implementation across grades, departments, buildings…. • Staff perceive RtI is another thing to do • Momentum is lost if key staff leave • Student outcomes do not improve • Parents are confused Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

44. Common Implementation Errors • We need more interventions! • Asking for a list of interventions or requesting “just tell us what to do” are not the most important considerations • Under-emphasizing intervention management is one of the most common RtI errors • Given a reasonably well-developed and well-matched intervention, intervention selection is rarely the problem Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

45. Common Implementation Errors • We have too many interventions! • Rapid indictment of the intervention without investigating whether the intervention was properly implemented • Most interventions fail because they are not implemented without a focus on integrity and fidelity • Feelings of being overwhelmed are generally a sign of implementation problems Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

46. Common Implementation Errors • We don’t know if it is working • Lack of data on student learning outcomes by class, by grade, and by school • Disagreements about how to interpret the data • Lack of disaggregated student learning data by demographic characteristics of students • Lack of means to measure progress toward system goals or making apples-to-apples comparisons of student performance over time and with RtI in place • No evidence of RtI implementation Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

47. Common Implementation Errors • We are too tired! • Diffusion of focus – chasing after every new shiny thing • Moving too fast • Change becomes an end in itself • Lack of focus on implementation processes, procedures, and strategies • Other signs of this error • Absence from implementation meetings • No data, no follow-through • Integrity problems begin to arise • Someone suggests a new model or path Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

48. Common Implementation Errors • We cannot get going • Paralysis by analysis • Long delays between decisions • There are large numbers of students for whom decisions have not been made • Implementation has begun without an implementation plan that specifies the operational details of the RtI effort • Implementation has been contemplated for more than one year Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

49. Common Implementation Errors • We need more staff! • Our implementation outpaced our capacity • Different schools are getting different results • Rates of intervention failure are high • New teachers do not know how to implement procedures • Data are frequently missing • Decisions are made that do not correspond with the data • Long delays between decisions are occurring • Demand is outpacing our ability to deliver • Coaches do not have sufficient knowledge and skills Midwest Instructional Leadership Council

50. Starting a Movement Midwest Instructional Leadership Council