Dr. Denise P. Gibbs, Director Alabama Scottish Rite Foundation Learning Centers gibbsdenise@aol

1. Dr. Denise P. Gibbs, Director Alabama Scottish Rite Foundation Learning Centers gibbsdenise@aol.com RTI Implementation: Problem Solving Teams STUDENT SUCCESS PST RtI Mega 2011 - Gibbs

2. This presentation is provided at no cost to Alabama schools by the Alabama Scottish Rite Foundation. The philanthropy of the Alabama Scottish Rite Foundation began in the 1950’s in Alabama and continues today. The mission of the Alabama Scottish Rite Foundation is to provide help to Alabama Schools as they work with students who struggle in reading -particularly those students with dyslexia. Mega 2011 - Gibbs

3. Anticipation Guidethen…Turn and Talk Bell ringer activity As soon as you are seated, please complete the Anticipation Guide included in your handout. Then…turn to your neighbor and talk about your initial answers Mega 2011 - Gibbs

4. Gains From High Impact Instructional Strategies: Research Findings(Marzano, 2001) Mega 2011 - Gibbs

5. Gains From High Impact Instructional Strategies: Research Findings(Marzano, 2001) Mega 2011 - Gibbs

6. Today’s High Impact Strategies • 9. Questions, cues, and advance organizers – Anticipation Guide, session outcomes, RTI Vocabulary • 6. Cooperative learning – Turn and Talks • 2. Summarizing and note taking – Power Point slides, your notes, 3-2-1, • 1. Similarities and differences – PSTs vs BBSSTs - Double Bubble • 5. Nonlinguistic representations - VVWAs • 4. Homework and practice – share important elements of this session with your colleagues Mega 2011 - Gibbs

7. Session outcomes…. Practice high impact strategies Describe PSTs in the RTI context Share ideas to help you create effective problem solving teams Review 2011 revisions to sample PST Manual in the context of RTI implementation Understand the connections between the work of the PST and referrals to special education Needed documentation Sample forms Mega 2011 - Gibbs

8. The RTI Context… Mega 2011 - Gibbs

9. RtI Guidance from the ALSDE Response to Instruction (RtI): Alabama’s Core Support for All Students: Standards, Resources, Support Alabama’s Tier I expectations-pages 5-6 Alabama’s Tier II expectations-pages 7-10 Alabama’s Tier III expectations-pages 11-13 Problem solving process-page 15 Goal setting-pages 16-17 Alabama’s six-step RtI protocol-page 18 Download from www.alsde.edu Mega 2011 - Gibbs

10. Alabama’s Core Principles of RtI(page 2) • Students receive high-quality, research-based instruction by qualified staff in their general education setting. • Use of a multi-tiered model of service delivery facilitates differentiated instruction and early intervening services for struggling learners. • Movement between tiers should be guided by a data-driven decision-making process. • Universal screening and progress monitoring are the basis for instructional decisions. Mega 2011 - Gibbs

11. RTI helps us… See how we (the entire school system, specific schools, grades, classes, and specific students) are doing so that we can… Celebrate our successes Take steps to ensure our successes Mega 2011 - Gibbs

12. Purpose of RTI across the grades K-8 Prevent academic and behavior difficulties as much as possible Regularly identify student skill levels in reading and in math Accelerate skills growth for ALL students Students who are ABOVE expected levels Students who are ON expected levels Students who are BELOW expected levels Mega 2011 - Gibbs

13. Purpose of RTI across the grades 9-12 do whatever it takes to help students Manage behavior and get/stay ENGAGED Achieve academically to acquire needed content knowledge in all subjects PREVENT DROP OUT PASS THE TEST!!! Mega 2011 - Gibbs

14. Building and perfecting the RTI framework is a (never ending?) journey Bring everything you are doing into the tent Determine your purpose Chart your course Take the necessary steps Evaluate your progress Revise when needed Mega 2011 - Gibbs

15. Elementary Tier Model K-3 PlusSpecial Education ? % 5% Tier 3 Intensive Intervention Intervention provided dailyin the classroom Tier 2 15% Comprehensive Core Instruction in Reading and in Math Tier 1 80% Mega 2011 - Gibbs

16. Grade 4 -12 Tier Model PlusSpecial Education ? % Tier 3 5% Intensive Intervention classes Differentiated strategy instruction in content classes small group-intentional groupings 15% Tier 2 Tier 1 80% Core instruction=Strategy instruction in content classes whole and small group Mega 2011 - Gibbs

17. RTI:B K-12 Tiers PlusSpecial Education ? % Tier 3 5% Intensive Intervention classes 15% Tier 2 Supplementalbehavior supports implemented in classrooms Tier 1 80% Universal positive behaviorsupports practiced school-wideor district-wide Mega 2011 - Gibbs

18. RTI Essential Vocabulary Your PSTs will need to: ANALYZE screening process outcomes MATCH students to needed interventions SET intervention goals MONITOR student progress in interventions DECIDE what to do next based on the available data Mega 2011 - Gibbs

19. Turn and Talk Discuss and list your in the bags, quick fixes, and long-term opportunities Mega 2011 - Gibbs

20. Problem Solving Team Manual (2011) Mega 2011 - Gibbs

21. Upcoming PST implementation Mega 2011 - Gibbs By August 15, 2011, each school must have a Problem Solving Team rather than a BBSST in place. BBSSTs are being replaced by Problem Solving Teams in the Alabama Administrative Code with regard to special education referrals. The PST should also be considered as a component of your RTI framework.

22. A source of information about problem solving teams Mega 2011 - Gibbs • A sample Problem Solving Team Manual along with sample documentation forms is available at www.alsde.edu • THIS MANUAL IS NOT MANDATED • Is intended as “you might consider this” for those who do not already have a problem solving process in place.

23. 2011 Revisions Mega 2011 - Gibbs • Problem Solving Team's Administration and Supervision (pages 13-14) • Inserted wording which has been added to the Alabama Administrative Code (AAC). • System-Level Reporting (page 15 and Appendix L) • Added suggestions regarding RTI outcome data which systems may wish to collect to facilitate their planning and decision-making • NOT to be submitted to the ALSDE!!!

24. 2011 Revisions Mega 2011 - Gibbs • Appendix B – Essential Skills to be Screened • Added information about Computer Adapted Testing (CAT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) to assist districts using tools which report results in scaled scores based on CAT. • Appendix C – Walkthrough Forms • Changed the word climate to environment on the walkthrough forms so that walkthroughs can be used to serve as a functional assessment of the classroom environment.

25. 2011 Revisions Mega 2011 - Gibbs • Appendix E – Goal Setting • Added an example illustrating goal setting based on score predicting success on high stakes tests (ARMT). • Appendix F – Progress Monitoring Probes • Added an example illustrating Computer Adapted Testing (CAT)

26. 2011 Revisions Mega 2011 - Gibbs • Appendix I – Student Intervention Documentation Form • Added attendance key • Edited example form to illustrate progress monitoring based on scaled score increases • Appendix J – Parent Letters and Reports • Added information about when to send letters • Added information to parent progress report regarding intervention strategies

27. 2011 Revisions Mega 2011 - Gibbs • Appendix K – Intervention Plan Form • Deleted SPED referral reference at the end of the plan form. • Edited sentence regarding specific interventions to say “Choose all that apply” • Appendix L – System PST Annual Report • Added section at the end to document race/ethnicity of students served (may be needed for Federal reporting)

28. 2011 Revisions Mega 2011 - Gibbs • Appendix O - Documentation Needed from PST for Referral for Evaluation for SPED • This flow chart was added • Includes references to sample documentation forms which can be used to document your RTI implementation in the event that a student needs to be referred for a SPED evaluation.

29. RTI and Special Education See pages 13 and 14 in PST Manual for specific AAC wording Special education referrals will require evidence that the student’s needs are not due to a lack of research-based instruction and intervention efforts. Your RTI framework and the work of your Problem Solving Teams can be used as a part of your efforts to ensure and document this. Appendix O in PST Manual is a flowchart detailing needed documentation Mega 2011 - Gibbs

30. Important distinctions between BBSST and PST processes To review and summarize….. Mega 2011 - Gibbs

31. Interventions NOT Accommodations The accommodations which have been recommended by the BBSST in the past will NOT meet the scientific, research-based intervention requirements included in current Federal and State laws and regulations. The PST must recommend interventions and must not recommend accommodations! Mega 2011 - Gibbs

32. Who gets “referred” to PST? Universal screenings in math and reading will determine which students are included in the academic intervention process. No longer should teachers “refer” students who fail a test to the PST. Teacher needs to determine reason for failure May need to provide differentiated Tier 1 instruction Address behavior issues (could ultimately result in behavior RTI interventions) Mega 2011 - Gibbs

33. Continuous Intervention Services When students begin the intervention process (Tier II or Tier III), they will continue in that process until they have attained grade-level standards and skills or until they are referred to the next tier or level. The work of the Problem Solving Team with a student may continue from one grade to the next based upon data analysis and intervention outcomes. Mega 2011 - Gibbs

34. Verbal and Visual Word Association (VVWA) 1. Interventions2. Accommodations Mega 2011 - Gibbs

35. Problem Solving Team Details Mega 2011 - Gibbs

36. Number of Problem Solving Teams needed per school? To be locally determined Important considerations The number of PSTs needed per school will be determined by the number of students receiving interventions. No PST should be expected to manage more students than can be responsibly and effectively reviewed and monitored. Mega 2011 - Gibbs

37. Problem Solving Team Structure? To be locally determined Some suggestions Grade-level PSTs Across grade level PSTs (4-5, 6-7, 9-10 etc) Teacher team PSTs Departmental PSTs Other Good to involve as many school personnel as possible on teams. Mega 2011 - Gibbs

38. Frequency and duration of Problem Solving Team meetings? To be locally determined Important considerations Each student’s data should be reviewed at least monthly Progress reports to parents should be sent regularly Generally, duration should not exceed one hour. It may work well to meet weekly and to review ¼ of the students each week. Mega 2011 - Gibbs

39. Possible Problem Solving Team Members? Classroom teachers Intervention teachers Instructional Coaches (Reading, Literacy, Math, Graduation, etc). School Counselors Administrators (principal or assistant principal). Mega 2011 - Gibbs

40. Problem Solving Team Member Roles? Chairperson Which students will be discussed and in what order Notify members Secretary Note decisions made and generate parent letters Timekeeper Keep discussions on track and timely Data person Present and explain graphs Mega 2011 - Gibbs

41. Double Bubble as an “after” summarizing activity Compare and Contrast BBSSTs and PSTs Mega 2011 - Gibbs

42. Steps for Problem Solving Teams Mega 2011 - Gibbs

43. 3-2-1 Foldable as an advanced organizer! 3 - of the most important PST steps2 - details related to each step1 - aspect of PSTs which will require the most PD Mega 2011 - Gibbs

44. Team’s Work in RTI Implementation • Review screening data • Match students with appropriate interventions • Select appropriate progress monitoring tools • Set measurable intervention goals • Review progress monitoring data, apply data-driven decision rules, and make recommendations • Send progress “reports” to parents on a regular basis • DOCUMENTATION Mega 2011 - Gibbs

45. (1) Team’s Review of Screening Data • Examples of screening data • High stakes test results (ARMT, grad exam, end of course tests, etc) • Commercially available screening tools (AIMSweb, STAR, Discovery, etc) • Grades and courses failed • Number of absences • Office discipline referrals Mega 2011 - Gibbs

46. (2) Team’s Matching of Students with Appropriate Interventions • Determine if enough information is available to make the following decisions. (If necessary, obtain additional information) • Determine areas of deficiency • Reading, math, behavior • Determine degree of support needed • Tier 2 or Tier 3 • Assign student to types and tiers of intervention Mega 2011 - Gibbs

47. (3) Team’s Selection of Progress Monitoring Tools • Tools should be able to be administered weekly and should be efficient • Make sure that the tool you select will reflect growth of the skill being targeted in intervention • If the commercially available tool you are using does not have what you need, you may need to develop what you need! Mega 2011 - Gibbs

48. (4) Team’s setting of Intervention goals and determining of the GOAL ROI • Determine level of skill expected at year’s end (GOAL). • 25th percentile? ARMT success predictor score? • Subtract BASELINE score from the GOAL to get needed gain (GROWTH) • Divide GROWTH by number of available weeks of intervention to get the GOAL ROI (weekly rate of improvement needed to reach year-end goal. • THEN compare this to the growth rate tables! Is this reasonable? Mega 2011 - Gibbs

49. (5) Team’s Data-Based Decision Making • Review progress monitoring data, apply data-based decision rules, and make needed recommendations. • Review data recorded on Student Intervention Documentation (SID) form. • Outcomes? • Attendance? Mega 2011 - Gibbs

50. (5) Team’s Data-Based Decision Making • Decide if student is on a trajectory which will lead to successful achievement of the goal. • When 4 consecutive data points reflect performance which is below the aimline, the team should consider altering the intervention • When, after 10-12 weeks of intervention, the achieved rate of improvement is less than half of the goal rate of improvement, the team should alter the intervention Mega 2011 - Gibbs