Leadership Strategies and Skills to Facilitate the Implementation of RtI

1. Leadership Strategies and Skills to Facilitate the Implementation of RtI LADSE June 14, 2010 Dr. George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director Institute for School Reform Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI Project University of South Florida

2. EVERY SYSTEM IS PERFECTLY ALIGNED FOR THE RESULTS IT GETS.

3. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE AND IMPROVE THE CLIMATE AND OUTCOMES OF SCHOOLING � BOTH FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS, THERE ARE FEATURES OF THE SCHOOL CULTURE THAT HAVE BE TO CHANGED, AND IF THEY ARE NOT CHANGED, YOUR WELL INTENTIONED EFFORTS WILL BE DEFEATED.  SEYMORE SARASON, 1996 

4. Systems-Change and the Implementation of RtI

5. Systems Change and RtI Implementation Common language, common understanding Need to develop CONSENSUS Planned and pursued in a systemic manner over time Change is a 4-6 year process One size does NOT fit all NASDSE School/District Blueprints are guidelines Professional Development is critical Outcome evaluation is NON-NEGOTIABLE SAPSI can be used to monitor PS/RtI Implementation Strong Leadership Leadership is not a role or title, but a skill set These are known facilitators for systems change. All are necessary, but none are sufficient individually. The last bullet is critically important. Sustained change cannot occur in the absence of ongoing measurement of the degree of change accomplished. This is a component of many change efforts that is frequently missing and ignored. Ongoing assessment of the progress of the change effort informs future targeted change activities such as professional development and technical assistance.These are known facilitators for systems change. All are necessary, but none are sufficient individually. The last bullet is critically important. Sustained change cannot occur in the absence of ongoing measurement of the degree of change accomplished. This is a component of many change efforts that is frequently missing and ignored. Ongoing assessment of the progress of the change effort informs future targeted change activities such as professional development and technical assistance.

6. LEARN Act and RTI� LEARN Act is the literacy foundation of ESEA RTI Language in the LEARN Act is called �Multi-Tier System of Supports Multi-Tier System of SupportsThe term ��multi-tier system of supports�� means a comprehensive system of differentiated supports that includes evidence-based instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, formative assessment, and research-based interventions matched to student needs, and educational decision making using student outcome data.�

7. A Blueprint for Reform-2010 "Instead of labeling failures, we will reward success. Instead of a single snapshot, we will recognize progress and growth. And instead of investing in the status quo, we must reform our schools to accelerate student achievement, close achievement gaps..." (Forward) ��districts will have fewer restrictions on blending funds from different categories with less red tape." (Page 6) �A commitment to...Meeting the needs of students with disabilities throughout ESEA and through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." )Page 19)

8. Sustainable Scaling-Up

9. Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI 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 Systems and Management Technology support Decision-making criteria established Schedules Implementation

10. Why have past initiatives failed? Failure to achieve CONSENSUS School culture is ignored Purpose unclear Lack of ongoing communication Unrealistic expectations of initial success Failure to measure and analyze progress Participants not involved in planning Participants lack skills and lack support for the implementation of new skills Emphasize the need for a consistent and well communicated vision which will facilitate consensus. As well, when individuals are part of the planning process and are able to have input over how the initiative is implemented, buy in is enhanced.Emphasize the need for a consistent and well communicated vision which will facilitate consensus. As well, when individuals are part of the planning process and are able to have input over how the initiative is implemented, buy in is enhanced.

11. RtI Infrastructure:Critical Elements District-Based Leadership Team (DBLT) School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT) School-Based Coach/Facilitators Professional Development Process Technical Assistance Interpretation & Use of Data Evaluation Data

12. District Infrastructure District Leadership Common Language/Common Understanding Is there a �unified� system of instruction at the district level? District Plan Requirements Consensus, Infrastructure, Implementation District Policies Professional Development and Technical Assistance Implementation Monitoring Implementation Fidelity Evaluation Plan District Responsibilities Direct support to building principals

13. School-Based Infrastructure School-based leadership team (SBLT) School-based coach Process Technical Assistance Interpretation and Use of Data Master Calendar Data Days Evaluation Model

14. SBLT The School-Based Leadership Team should: Work collaboratively to achieve implementation Define clear and agreed upon roles and responsibilities Meet frequently to monitor the progress of implementation, plan professional development, and provide technical assistance for implementation The SAPSI can be used to monitor implementation progress and plan professional development

15. Consensus Making the shift to a new paradigm, like RtI, does not simply involve accepting a new set of skills. It also involves giving up certain beliefs in favor of others. The giving up of previously held beliefs and ideas is particularly difficult for some folks. It�s important to view this difficulty as part of a change process and not necessarily as intentional resistance. Professional development is� development and happens over time. Ideas to give up would include that most learning problems exist within the child rather than in alterable variables, special education is a place rather than a service, and the focus of the system is on special education eligibility rather than on instructional need.The giving up of previously held beliefs and ideas is particularly difficult for some folks. It�s important to view this difficulty as part of a change process and not necessarily as intentional resistance. Professional development is� development and happens over time. Ideas to give up would include that most learning problems exist within the child rather than in alterable variables, special education is a place rather than a service, and the focus of the system is on special education eligibility rather than on instructional need.

16. Consensus Achieved when a group of individuals with a common goal agree to support activities necessary to achieve that goal even if that agreement flies in the face of the wishes of individual members of the group. Facilitated when leadership is strong. The giving up of previously held beliefs and ideas is particularly difficult for some folks. It�s important to view this difficulty as part of a change process and not necessarily as intentional resistance. Professional development is� development and happens over time. Ideas to give up would include that most learning problems exist within the child rather than in alterable variables, special education is a place rather than a service, and the focus of the system is on special education eligibility rather than on instructional need.The giving up of previously held beliefs and ideas is particularly difficult for some folks. It�s important to view this difficulty as part of a change process and not necessarily as intentional resistance. Professional development is� development and happens over time. Ideas to give up would include that most learning problems exist within the child rather than in alterable variables, special education is a place rather than a service, and the focus of the system is on special education eligibility rather than on instructional need.

17. Conclusion �A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.� ~Martin Luther King, Jr.  ---School psychologists can and should play a significant leadership role in systems-level organizational change required of PS/RtI practices. With foundational skills in consultation, data-based decision-making, and program evaluation, School Psychologists are in a perfect position to help facilitate consensus development in their schools and districts. Participant Question & Answer time here. ---School psychologists can and should play a significant leadership role in systems-level organizational change required of PS/RtI practices. With foundational skills in consultation, data-based decision-making, and program evaluation, School Psychologists are in a perfect position to help facilitate consensus development in their schools and districts. Participant Question & Answer time here.

18. Consensus Building Educators will embrace new ideas when two conditions exist: They understand the NEED for the idea They perceive that they either have the SKILLS to implement the idea OR they have the SUPPORT to develop the skills If a person does not understand the need for the change, motivation to engage in this difficult and threatening process is slight. Obviously skill deficits result in anxiety when a person is asked to do something for which they have not been prepared. However, knowing that they have the support to learn the skills will reduce that anxiety during the period of skill acquisition. I think that we need a slide that focuses on Consensus building strategies, e.g., PLCs discussion beliefs survey and perception of practices and the guiding questions, review of data and data discussions (Are we happy with the data?). Show examples of data and ask if happy.If a person does not understand the need for the change, motivation to engage in this difficult and threatening process is slight. Obviously skill deficits result in anxiety when a person is asked to do something for which they have not been prepared. However, knowing that they have the support to learn the skills will reduce that anxiety during the period of skill acquisition. I think that we need a slide that focuses on Consensus building strategies, e.g., PLCs discussion beliefs survey and perception of practices and the guiding questions, review of data and data discussions (Are we happy with the data?). Show examples of data and ask if happy.

19. Consensus Building: Beliefs PSM/RtI is a General Education Initiative-Not Special Education Improving the effectiveness of core instruction is basic to this process NO Child Left Behind Really Means �NO� Assessment (data) should both inform and evaluate the impact of instruction Policies must be consistent with beliefs Beliefs must be supported by research How do you spell AYP? The third NCLB bullet often generates controversy. The salient belief is that all children can learn - if an individual does not possess that belief, investment in a process designed to understand and reduce student difficulties is often limited.The third NCLB bullet often generates controversy. The salient belief is that all children can learn - if an individual does not possess that belief, investment in a process designed to understand and reduce student difficulties is often limited.

20. Consensus Building: Beliefs Every student is everybody�s responsibility Common belief about where building wants to educate its students Common commitment to building-based academic and behavior programs Common commitment to problem-solving process

21. Consensus Building: Knowledge An understanding of: The relationship between RtI and student achievement Need to increase the range of empirically validated instructional practices in the general education classroom Uses of the problem-solving method Technology and other supports available and necessary to implement RtI Administrative and leadership support necessary to maximize the implementation of RtI Need to provide practical models and examples with sufficient student outcome data Need for demonstration and guided practice opportunities This slide details some of the specific knowledge which supports PS/RtI.This slide details some of the specific knowledge which supports PS/RtI.

22. Consensus Building: A Shift in Thinking The central question is not: �What about the students is causing the performance discrepancy?� but �What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learners and learning environment should be altered so that the students will learn?� This shift alters everything else A major conceptual shift. This puts the problem in the context of alterable variables and moves it outside of the student. When the focus of team meetings is on the discovery of instructional changes that will enable learning, the content of the meeting is quite different from one focused on the discovery of a disability.A major conceptual shift. This puts the problem in the context of alterable variables and moves it outside of the student. When the focus of team meetings is on the discovery of instructional changes that will enable learning, the content of the meeting is quite different from one focused on the discovery of a disability.

23. SHIFTHappens

24. Strategies to Facilitate Consensus Ensure that a �structure� exists to facilitate consensus development Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) Presentation and discussion of disaggregated student data for the school Opportunities to discuss beliefs and practices Jose Castillo 2/18/2010::: Jose suggested here that we can also mention other strategies: such as sharing grade-level or school-wide data to build the case for change, one-legged conversations (i.e., informal hallway discussions that lead to changes), piloting RtI activities. In other words, a good amount of consensus is built as you are implementing so it may be useful to share. We of course need to balance any additional information with the need for practice that I have raised so I understand if we decide not to address other activities for the sake of time.Jose Castillo 2/18/2010::: Jose suggested here that we can also mention other strategies: such as sharing grade-level or school-wide data to build the case for change, one-legged conversations (i.e., informal hallway discussions that lead to changes), piloting RtI activities. In other words, a good amount of consensus is built as you are implementing so it may be useful to share. We of course need to balance any additional information with the need for practice that I have raised so I understand if we decide not to address other activities for the sake of time.

25. Presentation and Discussion of Data Is each of our student groups (NCLB) achieving proficiency? Are we satisfied with the rate at which gaps are closing? Do we believe that our core instruction is strengthening over time? Do we need to consider new priorities in light of our data?

26. Consensus Development:Guiding Questions for Discussion of Beliefs and Practices Changing Beliefs: Did our school�s beliefs change over time? If yes, in what areas did the greatest change occur? What do we think these changes mean in the context of implementing a PS/RtI model in our school? Changing Beliefs: Did our school�s beliefs change over time? If yes, in what areas did the greatest change occur? What do you we these changes mean in the context of implementing a PS/RtI model in our school? Changing Beliefs: Did our school�s beliefs change over time? If yes, in what areas did the greatest change occur? What do you we these changes mean in the context of implementing a PS/RtI model in our school?

27. Consensus Development:Guiding Questions, cont. Perception of Practices: What practices occurring in our school do we think are most consistent with the PS/RtI model? Least consistent? Which ones do we think may be a threat to the successful implementation of the model? Perception of Practices: What practices occurring in our school do we think are most consistent with the PS/RtI model? Least consistent? Which ones do we think may be a threat to the successful implementation of the model? Perception of Practices: What practices occurring in our school do we think are most consistent with the PS/RtI model? Least consistent? Which ones do we think may be a threat to the successful implementation of the model?

28. Consensus Development:Guiding Questions, cont. Beliefs & Practices: How consistent are the overall beliefs of our school with our overall perceptions of the practices occurring? What does this level of consistency/inconsistency mean in terms of implementing a PS/RtI model in our school?

29. EVALUATING CONSENSUS

30. Measuring Consensus Florida PS/RtI Project Tools Beliefs Survey Perception of Skills Survey Perception of Practices Survey Self Assessment of Problem-Solving Implementation (SAPSI): Consensus Section www.floridarti.usf.edu/resources/tools/assessments/index.html

31. Beliefs Survey Assess educator beliefs related to PS/RtI 27 items, Likert Scale format Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree 3 Factors: SWD Achieve Benchmarks Data-Based Decision Making Core & Supplemental Instruction ---The Beliefs Survey was developed by Project staff in order to assess the beliefs of educators regarding Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention (PS/RtI). ---Factor One, which includes items 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, and 11B, relates to the ability of students with disabilities to achieve academic benchmarks. Factor Two, which includes items 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27, relates to data-based decision-making. Factor Three, which includes items 7A, 7B, 8A, and 8B, relates to the functions of core and supplemental instruction. Additionally, items 6, 18, 19, and 26 were not accounted for by any of the three factors. ---The Beliefs Survey was developed by Project staff in order to assess the beliefs of educators regarding Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention (PS/RtI). ---Factor One, which includes items 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, and 11B, relates to the ability of students with disabilities to achieve academic benchmarks. Factor Two, which includes items 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27, relates to data-based decision-making. Factor Three, which includes items 7A, 7B, 8A, and 8B, relates to the functions of core and supplemental instruction. Additionally, items 6, 18, 19, and 26 were not accounted for by any of the three factors.

32. This graph represents a subset of Beliefs Survey items that reflect educator beliefs related to student academic ability across three time points: the beginning of Year 1 of the project and prior to professional development training, the end of Year 1 after five days of professional development training, and the end of Year 2 after nine total days of training. The above graph is just one example of how Project staff displays Beliefs Survey data in order to assess trends over time. Responses to items range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Percentages of responses are calculated for each level of agreement. To facilitate interpretation, responses indicating 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 2 (Disagree) are consolidated to reflect the percent who generally �disagreed.� Additionally, responses indicating 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly Agree) are consolidated to reflect the percent who generally �agreed.� Thus, the above data demonstrate the percentage of educators who reported either �disagree,� �neutral,� or �agree.� When first glancing at the data indicated as �disagree� and represented as the red part of the bars, an encouraging trend emerges. Five of the six items reveal a noticeable decrease in the percentage of educators who disagree with items believed to support PS/RtI concepts. In other words, the degree to which educators generally disagree with PS/RtI beliefs appears to decrease as a function of the training and technical assistance provided by the Project. However, further visual analysis indicates that an overall decrease in �disagreement� with a specific item does not necessarily directly relate to an increase in �agreement� on that same item. For example, the percent of educators who disagree on Item 10a is clearly decreasing over time, even though the percent of educators agreeing with Item 10a is also decreasing. However, the percent of individuals who reported �neutral� to Item 10a is clearly increasing over time. Thus, although the majority of the items in the above graph are demonstrating clear trends in consensus development, these trends suggest that educators are first decreasing in their disagreement with PS/RtI beliefs to report a neutral standing on such issues before reporting agreement with those statements. Although not all items on the Beliefs Survey develop such a pattern over time, the Project staff have witness this trend in the majority of Beliefs items in that educators first demonstrate a decrease in disagreement prior to an increase in agreement, with a neutral response emerging in the meantime. This graph represents a subset of Beliefs Survey items that reflect educator beliefs related to student academic ability across three time points: the beginning of Year 1 of the project and prior to professional development training, the end of Year 1 after five days of professional development training, and the end of Year 2 after nine total days of training. The above graph is just one example of how Project staff displays Beliefs Survey data in order to assess trends over time. Responses to items range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Percentages of responses are calculated for each level of agreement. To facilitate interpretation, responses indicating 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 2 (Disagree) are consolidated to reflect the percent who generally �disagreed.� Additionally, responses indicating 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly Agree) are consolidated to reflect the percent who generally �agreed.� Thus, the above data demonstrate the percentage of educators who reported either �disagree,� �neutral,� or �agree.� When first glancing at the data indicated as �disagree� and represented as the red part of the bars, an encouraging trend emerges. Five of the six items reveal a noticeable decrease in the percentage of educators who disagree with items believed to support PS/RtI concepts. In other words, the degree to which educators generally disagree with PS/RtI beliefs appears to decrease as a function of the training and technical assistance provided by the Project. However, further visual analysis indicates that an overall decrease in �disagreement� with a specific item does not necessarily directly relate to an increase in �agreement� on that same item. For example, the percent of educators who disagree on Item 10a is clearly decreasing over time, even though the percent of educators agreeing with Item 10a is also decreasing. However, the percent of individuals who reported �neutral� to Item 10a is clearly increasing over time. Thus, although the majority of the items in the above graph are demonstrating clear trends in consensus development, these trends suggest that educators are first decreasing in their disagreement with PS/RtI beliefs to report a neutral standing on such issues before reporting agreement with those statements. Although not all items on the Beliefs Survey develop such a pattern over time, the Project staff have witness this trend in the majority of Beliefs items in that educators first demonstrate a decrease in disagreement prior to an increase in agreement, with a neutral response emerging in the meantime.

33. Core Skill Areas for ALL Staff Data-Based Decision Making Process Coaching/Consultation Problem-Solving Process Data Collection and Management Instruction/Intervention Development, Support and Evaluation Intervention Fidelity Staff Training Effective Interpersonal Skills

34. Principal�s Role in Leading Implementation of RtI Models Problem-Solving Process Expectation for Data-Based Decision Making Scheduling �Data Days� Schedule driven by student needs Instructional/Intervention Support Intervention �Sufficiency� Communicating Student Outcomes Celebrating and Communicating Success

35. Developing Infrastructure:Data Coaches & Facilitators Data Coaches should be able to: Gather and organize Tier I and II data Support small group and individual data collection Assist in data interpretation Facilitate data meetings for building and grade levels Facilitators: Ensure pre-meeting preparation Review steps in process and desired outcomes Facilitate movement through steps Facilitate consensus building Set follow-up schedule/communication Create evaluation criteria/protocol Ensure parent involvement

36. Perception of RtI Skills Survey Assess educator perception of skills related to PS/RtI 21 items, Likert Scale format Not Have Skill to Very Highly Skilled 3 Factors: Academic RtI Skills Behavior RtI Skills Data Manipulation Skills Lets not use skills here�keep practices.Lets not use skills here�keep practices.

38. SAPSI: Consensus Section Needs assessment & progress monitoring tool evaluating Consensus, Infrastructure, & Implementation of PS/RtI 5 Consensus Items, ranging from Not Started to Achieved -Self-Report measure completed by the School-based Leadership Team-Self-Report measure completed by the School-based Leadership Team

39. This graph displays the five SAPSI items that reflect the average consensus building activities as reported by the SBLTs of all Project Pilot schools. Visual examination of these data suggests a general and steady increase of consensus building activities from the beginning of Year 1 to the end of Year 2 of the Project. Specifically, the majority of consensus building activities were reported as either �not started� or �in progress� by the SBLT members at the beginning of Year 1. However, by the end of Year 2, four of the five consensus building items were reported as falling between �achieved� and �maintaining.� Further visual analysis of the data displayed in Figure 2 indicates some differences in the swiftness that consensus building activities emerged among various educators in Pilot schools. For instance, SBLT members generally reported �achieved� consensus building activities by the end of Year 1 (Item 2), while District Leadership�s consensus building activities were not reported as �achieved� until the end of Year 2 (Item 1). Additionally, general staff not considered members of the SBLT or District Leadership had still not �achieved� consensus building activities by the end of Year 2 (Item 3). Thus, these data suggest that consensus building related to PS/RtI practices in schools is first achieved by SBLT members, followed by members of District Leadership. However, educators that are not members of the SBLT or District Leadership develop consensus at the slowest rate. This graph displays the five SAPSI items that reflect the average consensus building activities as reported by the SBLTs of all Project Pilot schools. Visual examination of these data suggests a general and steady increase of consensus building activities from the beginning of Year 1 to the end of Year 2 of the Project. Specifically, the majority of consensus building activities were reported as either �not started� or �in progress� by the SBLT members at the beginning of Year 1. However, by the end of Year 2, four of the five consensus building items were reported as falling between �achieved� and �maintaining.� Further visual analysis of the data displayed in Figure 2 indicates some differences in the swiftness that consensus building activities emerged among various educators in Pilot schools. For instance, SBLT members generally reported �achieved� consensus building activities by the end of Year 1 (Item 2), while District Leadership�s consensus building activities were not reported as �achieved� until the end of Year 2 (Item 1). Additionally, general staff not considered members of the SBLT or District Leadership had still not �achieved� consensus building activities by the end of Year 2 (Item 3). Thus, these data suggest that consensus building related to PS/RtI practices in schools is first achieved by SBLT members, followed by members of District Leadership. However, educators that are not members of the SBLT or District Leadership develop consensus at the slowest rate.

40. 3= Maintaining 2= Achieved 1= In Progress 0= Not Started3= Maintaining 2= Achieved 1= In Progress 0= Not Started

41. Table Top Activity Participant Small Group Discussions How might you use some or all of these tools to help you evaluate Consensus development in your school? District? How might you share the results of these measures? Which stakeholders need this information? How might these data influence professional development planning? Table Top Activity � allow then to discuss these questions in pairs or in small groups for approximately 7 minutes. Then have a few of them �share out� for another 7 minutes. Table Top Activity � allow then to discuss these questions in pairs or in small groups for approximately 7 minutes. Then have a few of them �share out� for another 7 minutes.

42. PS/RtI Infrastructure Development

43. Infrastructure District and School-Based Team Problem-Solving Process Data Sources Instruction/Intervention Maps Fidelity Documentation Intervention Support Scheduling Decision Rules Technology Support

44. Intervention Fidelity Strategies Tier 1 Principal Reading Walkthroughs assessing presence/absence of effective instructional strategies Effective instruction checklist Secondary core reading program checklists Tier 2/3 Intervention Support Practices

45. Effective Instruction (Foorman et al., 2003; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Arrasmith, 2003; & Rosenshine, 1986) --Example of an Effective Instruction Checklist to be used during walkthrough.--Example of an Effective Instruction Checklist to be used during walkthrough.

46. Tier Functions/Integration How the Tiers work Time aggregation Tier integration

47. How the Tiers Work Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or behavioral Greater the tier, greater support and �severity� Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that results in a positive response to intervention Continue until student strengthens response significantly Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level) Determine the relationship between sustained growth and sustained support.

48. Time Aggregation Tier 2 and 3 in addition to Tier 1 Tier 3 time equal to or greater than Tiers 1 + 2 Alternative curriculum Time of core instruction determines Tiers 2 and 3

49. Instructional Integration Focus of Tiers 2 and 3 is specialized instructional strategies, time and focus of instruction Application of instructional strategies should include application to core instructional materials and content Single intervention plan with focus, activities and content contributed by each provider Agreement on progress monitoring level and content (Should be Tier 1)

50. Table Top Case Study 5th grade student Reading Level: beginning 2nd grade in fluency, end of 4th in listening comprehension, beginning 3rd in reading comprehension. Vocabulary at mid-4th grade level. Receiving services through SLD program and Title I Reading

51. Intervention Support Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff All intervention plans should have intervention support Principals should ensure that intervention plans have intervention support Teachers should not be expected to implement plans for which there is no support

52. Intervention Support Pre-meeting Review data Review steps to intervention Determine logistics First 2 weeks 2-3 meetings/week Review data Review steps to intervention Revise, if necessary

53. Intervention Support Second Two Weeks Meet twice each week Following weeks Meet at least weekly Review data Review steps Discuss Revisions Approaching benchmark Review data Schedule for intervention fading Review data

55. Tier 1 Data Days Typically, Tier 1 analyses done in the summer Based on: High Stakes Assessment Data District-Wide Assessments Disaggregated Data Decisions used throughout year Core instruction changes decided at this time

56. Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 1 Identify the number and names of students who are in core instruction 100% of the time. Identify the number and names of students who receive supplemental instruction. Identify the number and names of students who receive intensive instruction. Calculate the % of students who receive only Tier 1, core instruction. Is this at, above or below 80%? Same for Tiers 2 and 3? What does the distribution look like? A triangle, a rectangle?

57. Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 2 What % of Tier 1 students made proficiency? What % of Tier 2 students made proficiency? What % of Tier 3 students made proficiency? What was the overall % of students who made proficiency? Calculate by disaggregated groups.

58. Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 3 By disaggregated groups, plot the % of students who made proficiency for the past 5 years. Calculate the % of average growth per year for each group. % proficient in year 5 minus % proficient in year 1 divided by 5=average rate of increase in % of students making proficiency

59. Tier 1 Data Analysis-Building Level:Step 4 Are you happy with: % of students in core who are proficient? Same for each of the other Tiers. % of students in the three Tiers? Given that the national increase in % of students who move to proficiency is about 7%, how are you doing with the rate over the past years and what does this information mean to you for the next 5 years? In 2014, 95% of students should be proficient

61. CST English Language Arts