Stillwater Area Public Schools Response to Intervention K-12 Steering Committee

1. Stillwater Area Public SchoolsResponse to Intervention K-12 Steering Committee December 2007

2. Today’s Agenda • Background on RtI Implementation issues • Identify our current status and needs regarding RtI implementation. • Determine our next steps in RtI Implementation • District needs assessment – complete form

3. RtI Steering Committee Role • Shared vision of RtI and problem-solving model • Provide district-level insight and oversight in the implementation of RtI. • Formulate recommendations to be forwarded to district-level administration. • Engage district/building staff regarding RtI • Answer questions from peers about RtI • Attend meetings periodically, about 3-4 times per year.

4. Guiding Beliefs of RtI • All students are part of the general education system. • There is shared responsibility for student achievement across the entire school community. • The best way to address student learning needs is to be proactive. Not only can all student learn, but all students WILL learn.

5. Guiding Beliefs of RtI • Differentiated instruction is an essential part of the instructional program. • Accurate reliable assessment data are essential to determine the instructional needs of all students. • Instructional decisions are based on multiple sources of data.

6. Guiding Beliefs of RtI • The effectiveness of instruction is routinely monitored; on-going formative data are used to indicate when changes in instruction are needed. • Parents are vital members of the team to support students. • Administrators and teacher leadership teams are vital in the instructional leadership and data based decision making of a district and school.

7. Guiding Beliefs of RtI • The problem-solving model applied to all levels of students’ need (tier 1, 2, & 3) will produce increased performance. • Research clearly indicates that the discrepancy model for special education eligibility is a faulty model.

8. Guiding Beliefs of RtI • A variety of research-based practices will be needed to address the needs of learners (not one size fits all). • Each school has a unique culture, set of resources and needs requiring a tailored system of decision making. • Individuals with skills in data-based decision making will be needed to support the process.

9. Response to Intervention Vision (DRAFT) The Response to Intervention (RtI) vision for Stillwater Area Public Schools is to (a) provide high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, (b) monitor student progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals and (c) apply student response data to important educational decisions across the district and individual buildings. Each school building will implement a fully functional problem-solving model that will be applied to decisions in general, remedial and special education; creating a well-integrated system of instruction and intervention guided by student outcome data.

10. RtI & Problem-Solving – What have we accomplished so far (06-07)… • District RtI Coordinator to facilitate the process. • RtI & problem-solving training for 10 elementary teams. • Increased use of universal screening data for all students. • Elementary teams processed about 60 cases last year using the problem-solving intervention model. • Computer database system is being used too collect and manage assessment data and RtI information. • AimsWeb assessments for tier II & III interventions • Teams saw great success at intervening with students and teams functioned effectively. • Frustration was felt with not being able to “qualify” students for SLD using the RtI approach.

11. RtI & Problem-Solving – What have we accomplished so far (07-08)… • Problem-solving teams continue to meet and improve their skills and capacity. • Creation of a new District RtI K-12 steering committee. • Advanced training for elementary problem-solving teams – ½ day this January. • Jr. High training (3 - ½ days) SJHS & OLJH grade 7 only. Teams begin work by 1/24. • Senior high training for 10th grade teams (3 – ½ days). Teams begin work by 1/24.

12. “Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re Nomads, for crying out loud!” Some People see change as a singular event. RtI is an on-going process. (5 years minimum!)

13. Essential Component 1 Multi-tier Model of Services Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • High Intensity • Of longer duration • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • Intense, durable procedures • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Universal Interventions • All students • Preventive, proactive • Universal Interventions • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90%

14. RtI Blueprint for Practice – District Level Implementation Adapted from NASDSE

15. Stages of Implementation • Consensus Building • Infrastructure Development • Implementation

16. Parallel Structures • At each level, consensus must be achieved across all parties implementing a new initiative • Collaboration must occur to ensure that the infrastructure is present, once individuals and groups agree on the need to implement the initiative • Communication, support, coaching and common vision must be present in order to ensure consistent implementation across diverse settings and locations

17. What Are the Desired Outcomes of a Successful District Plan? • District Outcomes • Led by General Education, Supported by Special Education • Infrastructure for a 3-Tiered Model • Problem-Solving Model Implemented with Integrity • Effective Collection and Use of Data • Decision Rules for Intervention Evaluation and Special Education Eligibility Determination • Technology to Manage and Document Data-Based Decision Making • Improved Academic and Behavior Outcomes for All Students • Consumer Confidence and Satisfaction

18. What Are the Desired Outcomes of a Successful School Plan? • Support for individuals experiencing the change • Professional development to provide the needed knowledge and skills • Building level leadership (shared leadership) • Efficient structures for ongoing data collection, analysis, and decision making • Effective system of instruction to meet the needs of all students • Improved achievement and outcomes for students

19. Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI • Consensus • Belief is shared • Vision is agreed upon • Implementation requirements understood • Infrastructure Development • Regulations and/or policies • Training, coaching & technical assistance • Model intervention program (e.g., Standard treatment Protocol Interventions) • Core, Strategic, and Intensive instruction Tier I, II III intervention systems • Data Management • Technology support • Decision-making criteria established • Implementation

20. Consensus Building • Successful implementation of PSM/RtI depends on a shared understanding of the relationship between existing state & District policies, procedures and initiatives and PSM/RtI.

21. Consensus Building: District • Analysis of how existing policies support RtI • Analysis of which policies must be modified to incorporate PSM/RtI • Analysis of how RtI concepts interface with currently existing initiatives within district • Literacy First, literacy blocks, Math Recovery, RWM, W. Daggott, STEM, Cog. Tutor, CGI, etc. etc. • Positive Behavior Support • Early Intervening Services • Staff Development activities

22. Consensus Building: District 5. Analysis of how to fit PSM/RtI into district school improvement framework 6. Critical stakeholders have been identified • General Education • Special Education • Student Services • Administration • Parents

23. Consensus Building: District • A group of leaders has been identified and formed to lead the effort • District and building implementation groups should be similar • General Education Teachers • Reading, Math, Science • Special Education Teachers • Student Services Supervisors (Personnel) • Psychology, Social Work, Counseling, others • Leadership (Asst. Supt./ Principal) • Data Management • Professional Development • Parent/Advocacy

24. Consensus Building: School • Coordinate with district administration • This assumes consensus building work and analysis has been done at district level • If not, analysis and alignment with existing initiatives must be done • School leadership must coordinate with district leadership • Provide information to school staff • Why RtI • What is it? • Benefits of RtI • What will it take? • Identify the consensus level among staff that is necessary for implementing RtI • What % of agreement is needed?

25. Consensus Building: School • Determine next steps • If consensus has been reached, form school team and begin to plan • If consensus has not, continue activities to build consensus among staff • Plan to support change initiative • Align with building vision, values, mission • Set goals • Identify elements of change process • Plan for ongoing communication

26. Infrastructure Development: District • District policies/procedures clearly define how to implement problem-solving/RtI • Data management systems are developed or selected to support RtI implementation • Existing Federal, State, and District initiatives are re-examined and integrated to provide sustained support of RtI • Connections are made and networks expanded to existing RtI-related initiatives (e.g., Literacy first) • A plan is in place that clearly defines how the district, at all levels, will support the implementation of RtI through systemic technical assistance, resources and professional development

27. Infrastructure Development: School • Infrastructure developed by school leadership team answering a series of questions • Each school must develop their own answers • Doesn’t tell them what to think…instead it is what to think about • Based on a continuous improvement model

28. Guiding Questions for Buildings • Is the core program sufficient? • If the core program is not sufficient, why isn’t it? • How will needs identified in the core be addressed? • How will the effectiveness and efficiency of the core be monitored over time? • For which students is the core program sufficient or not sufficient and why? • What specific supplemental and intensive instruction is needed? • How will supplemental and intensive instruction be delivered? • How will effectiveness of supplemental and intensive instruction be monitored? • Which students need to move to a different level of instruction?

29. Implementation: District • The district has the necessary systemic supports in place to ensure that the District is able to successfully implement RtI in a way that benefits students and supports teachers and parents. • The implementation of RtI results in increased student achievement and/or improved behavior. • The district has a multi year implementation and professional development plan that provides on-going sustained support for RtI. • The district has an evaluation plan to assess the impact of RtI on student, site, district, and personnel outcomes.

30. Implementation: School • Provide professional development and ongoing supports to those conducting monitoring and those providing instruction • Implement logistics of monitoring assessments and periodic data analysis • Implement logistics of core, supplemental and intensive instruction • Monitor implementation of instruction and intervention • School-based “coaches” • Adjust as needed

31. Personnel Critical to Successful Implementation • District-Level Leaders • Building Leadership Team • Coaches • Facilitator • Teachers/Student Services • Parents • Students

32. Role of District Leaders • Give “permission” for model • Provide a vision for outcome-based service delivery • Provide necessary resources for intervention implementation • Reinforce effective practices • Expect accountability • Provide tangible support for effort • Training • Coaching • Technology • Policies

33. Building Problem Solving Team: Content Knowledge • Understanding of: • Research based practices in area of content (reading, math, social behavior etc.) • Assessment and using assessment data to match student needs • Effective elements to support change • Coaching and methods to support implementation • Ongoing data-based decision making

34. Special Education Eligibility Assessment Process and Data • Historical system: Global – ability and achievement tests, uses only national norms, 1-2 sessions only, based on hypothetical constructs, does not lead to intervention and has low utility, ecological information has little impact. • RtI: Specific – usually direct measures of specific skills needed for success in the classroom, repeated measures/progress monitoring, adjusting interventions based on data, uses various norm groups, relates to relevant standards, leads directly to intervention with high utility, ecological information is central to decision-making.

35. Special Education Eligibility & RtI Component: LD eligibility criteria • Historical system: Primarily based on ability-achievement discrepancy and consideration of SLD exclusion factors • RTI: Based on significant difference in performance compared to peers, low rate of progress even with high-quality interventions, educational need, consideration of SLD exclusion factors

36. Entitlement for Special Education (previously referred to as eligibility) 3 Pronged Criteria: • Educational Progress • Discrepancy • Instructional Needs Grimes,J., Kurns, S (22003, December) An Intervention-based system for Addressing NCLB and IDEA Expectations: A Multiple Tired Model to Ensure Every Child Learns. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Reponsiveness to Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

37. Prong 1 – Criteria: Educational Progress • Researched-based interventions have failed to improve a student’s rate of learning and additional resources are needed to enhance student learning or the interventions have improved the rate of learning but are too demanding to be implemented with integrity without intensive intervention

38. Prong 2 – Criteria: Discrepancy • Given equal or enhanced opportunities, the student’s current level of performance is significantly lower than typical peers on identified standards

39. Prong 3 – Criteria: Instructional Needs • Instructional needs have been identified that are beyond what can be provided in general education – this is evident when curriculum, instruction or the environmental conditions need to be very different for the student as compared to the needs of other students in the general education environment.

40. Entitlement for Special Education Multivariate Discrepancy Model High Instructional Needs Slow Educational Progress Academic Skill Discrepancy Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources

41. Proposed MN SLD Criteria (draft 10/07) • Must receive 2 documented scientific researched- based interventions (SRBI) prior to evaluation or as part of evaluation. • Data must confirm a disability in a variety of settings • Meets criteria in A,B, C or A, B, D

42. Proposed MN SLD Rule • Does not achieve adequately in (reading, writing, math) in response to usual classroom instruction, and either • does not make adequate progress toward state standards • Exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both relative to age, state-approved grade level standards….

43. Proposed MN SLD Rule • B) The child has a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes… • C) Demonstrates a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement…1.75 standard deviations below the mean of the distribution of difference scores for the general population…. This is the “old discrepancy model”.

44. Proposed MN SLD Rule D) Demonstrates an inadequate rate of progress. • A minimum of 12 data points are required over at least a 7 week period. ROP is inadequate when: • Rate of improvement is minimal and continued intervention will not likely result in reaching age or state grade-level standards; • Progress will likely not be maintained when instructional supports are removed; • The child’s level of performance in repeated assessments of achievement falls below the child’s age or state approved standards, and • The level of achievement must be at least or below the 5th percentile rank on one or more valid and reliable achievement tests using either state or national comparisons. Local comparison data that is valid and reliable may be used in addition to either state or national data.

45. Major Criticisms of the Proposal Law • Clarification is needed on the definition of “performance” and how that differs from the term achievement. The rule should not require school districts to administer individual tests of intellectual ability due to their lack of treatment validity. • States that “the child has a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes and includes an information processing condition…” There are not any reliable and valid measures of information processing, and even if there were, there is not any evidence that matching interventions to children’s processing style results produces positive effects. Teams should not be required to measure information processing. This requirement is another example of exceeding federal requirements.

46. Major Criticisms of the Proposal Law • The proposed rule uses the term “consistent intervention.” It is suggested that the word “consistent” be eliminated and change the wording to “ A minimum of 12 data points are required from interventions implemented over at least seven school weeks in order to establish the rate of progress.” This language will give teams the flexibility to change ineffective interventions and gather data across interventions using the 12 data point over 7 school week rule. • Current general outcome measures in the areas of math and writing are not as sensitive to change as reading measures. Due to the standard error of measurement, it is often ill-advised to measure performance more than 2 times per month. Proposed rules would require a student to be in an intervention at least 6 months (collecting data two times per month) before making an eligibility determination.

47. Major Criticisms of the Proposal Law • Language should be added that states that interventions selected for students will be well-matched to student needs. Teams should provide a good rationale as to why the intervention was selected for the particular student. Without this language, weak interventions that are not well-matched to student need could be selected. Students could qualify for special education based on data from a poor intervention.

48. Entitlement for Special EducationPossible Model Multivariate Discrepancy Model * 12 Data pts. * Slope > 1 year to target or standard *>7 weeks of inter- vention High Instructional Needs = team decision <=5th Nat. %ile on a “quality” Assessment (Standards=local) Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources

49. Tentative Road Map for RtI (draft 12/07) • Advanced training for elementary PS teams Winter 2008 • Reading eligibility determination process K-6 Winter 2008 • Training for elementary gen ed on RtI process Winter 2008 • Secondary PS teams begin work Winter 2008 • District discussions of resource allocation for RtI initiatives Winter 08 • Building teams review data for tier-level determination Fall 2008 • Training for secondary gen ed on RtI process Fall 2008 • Advanced training for 7 & 10 PS teams late Fall 2008 • Initial PS team training for 8, 9, 11 & 12 grade teams Fall 2008 • Math universal screening K-6 Fall 2008 • Math eligibility determination process K-6 Spring 2008 • Reading eligibility determination process 7-12 Spring 2009 • Advanced training for 8, 9, 11, & 12th grade teams Fall 2009 • Integration of secondary assessment system into RtI model Spring 2009 • Math Eligibility determination process 7-12 Spring 2009

50. Immediate RtI Questions • General education K-6 teachers referral procedures and documentation requirements • Advanced K-6 Problem-solving teams training • Eligibility determination process in reading K-6 • Community notification re: # 1 & 3 • Getting secondary 7 & 10 PS teams up and functioning