Response to Intervention: The Impact of A School Reform Initiative on the Schooling of America’s Children and Youth

1. Response to Intervention:The Impact of A School Reform Initiative on the Schooling of America’s Children and Youth 7th Annual Benjamin Cluff, Jr. Lecture David O. McKay School of Education Brigham Young University March 18, 2010 Dr. George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director Institute for School Reform University of South Florida

2. Culture of Change • No Child Left Behind (ESEA) • Accountability (Outcomes, Response to Instruction)-More Rigor • Disaggregated Data • State-Approved, State-Level Benchmarks-Higher Expectations • More exposure to the curriculum • IDEIA • Insistence on “effective instruction” in in reading and math in general education • Requirement for a different type of assessment • Continuous Progress Monitoring • Universal screening • Higher expectations for students with disabilities (All Can Learn) • A Blueprint for Reform-2010

3. 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)

4. Reform-In Another Time • Lengthening class periods • 30 to 60 minutes (Increased Academic Engaged Time) • Increased expectations of the faculty • New curriculum • Increasing standards in reading and math

5. Benjamin Cluff, Jr1892 “The future, too, as we now view it is full of bright promises and encouraging signs…”

6. We can, whenever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far. The Conundrum of American Public Education Ron Edmonds, 1982 in DeFour et al., 2004

7. A Shift in Thinking The central question is not: “What about the student 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 Ken Howell

8. RtI: The Model

9. Response to Intervention • RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions. (Batsche, et al., 2005) • Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

10. Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary Problem Solving Process

11. Three-Tiered Model of School Supports & the Problem-solving Process ACADEMIC SYSTEMS Tier 3: Comprehensive & IntensiveStudents who need individualized interventions. Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsStudents who need more support in addition to the core curriculum. Tier 1: Core CurriculumAll students, including students who require curricular enhancements for acceleration. BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsStudents who need individualized intervention. Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsStudents who need more support in addition to school-wide positive behavior program. Tier 1: Universal Interventions All students in all settings.

12. Model of Schooling • All district instruction and intervention services have a “place” in this model. • Critical Questions: • Where does it “fit” in the triangle? • How is it integrated with core instruction? • How will the impact on student performance be measured?

13. Problem-Solving/RtIResource Management 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% Students 80-90% 80-90% • Public Education Resource Deployment • Support staff cannot resource more than 20% of the students • Service vs Effectiveness--BIG ISSUE Academic Behavior

14. The Outcomes • Maximize effect of core instruction for all students • Targeted instruction and interventions for at-risk learners • Significant improvements in pro-social behaviors • Reduction in over-representation of diverse student groups in low academic performance, special education, suspension/expulsion, and alternative education. • Overall improvement in achievement rates • Maximize efficiency and return on investment • AYP

15. RtI: Framing Issues and Key Concepts • Academic Engaged Time (AET) is the best predictor of student achievement • 330 minutes in a day, 1650 in a week and 56,700 in a year • This is the “currency” of instruction/intervention • Its what we have to spend on students • How we use it determines student outcomes. • MOST students who are behind will respond positively to additional CORE instruction. • Schools have more staff qualified to deliver core instruction than specialized instruction. • Issue is how to schedule in such a way as to provide more exposure to core.

16. RtI: Framing Issues and Key Concepts • Managing the GAP between student current level of performance and expectation (benchmark, standards, goal) is what RtI is all about. • The two critical pieces of information we need about students are: • How BIG is the GAP? • AND • How much time do we have to close it? • The answers to these 2 questions defines our instructional mission.

17. RtI: RATE • Rate is growth per week (month) necessary to close the GAP • Rate becomes the statistic we need to define evidence-based intervention (EBI) • EBI is any intervention that results in the desired RATE

18. RtI: 4 Priorities • Acceleration • Move students at or above benchmark • Application to gifted education • Application to honors, AP and other accelerated programs

19. RtI: 4 Priorities 2. Prevention: Identify students at-risk for literacy failure BEFORE they actually fail. • Kindergarten screening, intervention and progress monitoring is key. • No excuse for not identifying ALL at-risk students by November of the kindergarten year. • This strategy prevents the GAP. • Managing GAPs is more expensive and less likely to be successful.

20. RtI: 4 Priorities 3. Early Intervention • Purpose here is the manage the GAP. • Students who are more that 2 years behind have a 10% chance, or less, or catching up. • Benchmark, progress monitoring data, district-wide assessments are used to identify students that have a gap of 2 years or less. • Students bumping up against the 2 year level receive the most intensive services. • This more costly and requires more specialized instruction/personnel

21. RtI: 4 Priorities 4. Intensive Intervention • Reserved for those students who have a GAP of more than 2 years and the rate of growth to close the GAP is unrealistic. Too much growth—too little time remaining. • Problem-solving is used to develop instructional priorities. • This is truly a case of “you cannot do something different the same way.” • This is the most costly, staff intensive and least likely to result in goal attainment

22. Results Monitoring Addl. Diagnostic Assessment Instruction All Students at a grade level Individualized Intensive Individual Diagnostic Intensive 1-5% weekly Small Group Differen- tiated By Skill Supplemental 5-10% Standard Protocol Behavior Academics 2 times/month Core Bench- Mark Assessment Annual Testing ODRs Monthly Bx Screening None Continue With Core Instruction Grades Classroom Assessments Yearly Assessments 80-90% How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment Protocol Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1

23. National Perspective • 71% of districts are in some stage of implementing RTI – up from 60% in 2008 and 44% in 2007 • RTI is being increasingly implemented across all grade levels with a significant increase in high school implementation compared to 2008 • Of districts with enough data, 83% indicated RTI has reduced the number of referrals to special education • Districts reported the three primary obstacles to implementing RTI as: Insufficient teacher training, Lack of intervention resources, Lack of data, knowledge, skills for tracking/charting • www.spectrumk12.com

24. What Does the Research Say About RtI? www.nasdse.org RtI: Research to Practice

25. Effective Schools • 30% or more of students at risk but who were at grade level at the end of the year. • Characteristics • Strong Leadership • Positive Belief and Teacher Dedication • Data Utilization and Analysis • Effective Scheduling • Professional Development • Scientifically-Based Intervention Programs • Parent Involvement • (Crawford and Torgeson) • (

28. Pilot vs Comparison SchoolsLevel 3 or Higher on FCAT2006/7-2008/91 Year of Baseline, 1 Year of Implementation

29. Change Model Consensus Infrastructure Implementation

30. Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI • Consensus • Belief is shared • Vision is agreed upon • Implementation requirements understood • Infrastructure Development • Problem-Solving Process • Data System • Policies/Procedures • Training • Tier I and II intervention systems • E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan • Technology support • Decision-making criteria established • Implementation

31. 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

32. 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

33. Building Consensus • Knowledge • Beliefs • Understanding the “Need”- DATA • Skills and/or Support

34. PRACTIONER DATA:KNOWLEDGE & SKILL GAPS • Survey of classroom teachers • Looked at beliefs and teacher perceptions of RTI skills • Analyzed data for beginning teachers only (first-year and one to four years) • Response options ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (www.floridarti.usf.edu)

35. TEACHER BELIEFS

36. TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’t

37. TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’t

39. Does A Need Exist for a Change in How We ViewTeaching and Learning?

40. Consensus Development:Data • Are you happy with your data? • Building/Grade Level Student Outcomes • Disaggregated • AYP

44. Do We Perceive that We Have the Skills to Implement This Process?

45. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS

46. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

47. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

48. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

49. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

50. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t