RtI Implementation

RtI Implementation Ramsey & Sanford Elementary Montevideo, MN 2008-2009 Sarah Lieber, Elementary Dean of Students slieber@monte.k12.mn.us

Montevideo Elementary Demographics (K-4) • Ethnic Groups • 2% American Indian • 2% African American • 1% Asian • 8% Hispanic • 87% White • 5% Limited English Language Learners • 17% Special Education • 42% Free and Reduced Lunch • Mobility • 4% into the district, 6% out of the district

Before we began… • Used the NWEA in the fall and spring with students to measure growth • Data was looked at in the fall and spring • Periodically students took the “short” NWEA test during the year to see if any growth had been made • Each building had a TAT (Teachers assisting Teachers) team in place • Met as needed • Was viewed as a process to get students into Special Education instead of keep them out

Classroom teachers used Accelerated Reading and Accelerated Math with students • We DID NOT have: • A “trained” problem solving team • Evidence based interventions • A “universal screening” tool • A “progress monitoring” tool that enabled us to PM as often as needed • Team planning time to analyze data and look over growth/progress monitoring results

Where did we start? • Created an RtI team including an administrator, Special Education teacher, a Title I teacher, and made sure all grade levels were represented • Attended an informational conference to learn more about RtI, and to see if it was something we could benefit from

Followed up with a half-day meeting to share ideas/concepts of the RtI implementation process and to determine next steps • Applied to be coached by the MN RtI Center (application approved) • Met again as a whole group to create a powerpoint presentation to share with any and all elementary staff that would be affected by implementing RtI

Had all elementary staff take the Stages of Concern Questionnaire to see where their needs were as we planned to present to all staff • Scheduled three 2-hour break-outs sessions during a day, in order to inform and teach all staff about the RtI process, and what it could mean for Montevideo • Purchased AIMSWEB and ran a spring pilot using the reading/early literacy probes

Analyzed data as an RtI team and shared the data with classroom teachers • Purchased the Read Naturally Curriculum to serve as a fluency intervention • Applied for and was granted a MN Reading Corp position

Summer, 2008 • All staff was asked to sort through “stuff” and any curricular materials and/or interventions that had been hidden on a shelf surfaced. • RtI Team sorted through these piles and kept the materials they felt would serve as creating a new intervention library. These were stored in the Title I/Resource Room at each building.

Four staff members were trained in using AIMSWEB, and served to teach and guide others to use the program. • Title I teachers were trained to use Read Naturally and Word Warm-ups, enter data into AIMSWEB as well as change interventions, and were given time to explore other interventions the district had available (from core curricula, etc.) • The Title I teachers and the MN Reading Corp member were going to do the interventions

Fall, 2008 • All K-4 students were screened in reading • K (letter naming and letter sounds) • 1 (nonsense words) • 2-4 (fluency) • Using the data, as well as other assessment data and teacher input, it was determined which students were in need of a Tier II intervention (Title I and/or MN Reading Corp assistance). Based off of their scores, an intervention was selected for them, schedules were created, and the fun began.

Problem Solving Team • The TAT team disbanded and a PSTeam was created at each building composed of RtI team members. • Referral process was created • Weekly meetings were set for an hour each with the intent to squeeze 3-4 different meeting within that time frame • Expectations were given to staff

RtI Forms • Referral to Problem Solving Team • Parent Form • Request for Change in Intervention • Individualized Student Intervention Plan • PST Student File Cover Sheet • Intervention Permission Form

Scheduling • Random • Meeting with teachers and trying to schedule students in to the open slots that the intervention teachers have (making the best of it) • Power Hour • Designating a block of time per teacher/grade level where interventions will occur and having classroom teachers build their schedules around it • Example

Funding • A small stipend was received by the MN RtI Center, as we were being coached • Title I dollars • AYP and/or staff development dollars • This program can be run utilizing current resources, yet they need to be utilized in a creative way

Current Focus • Researching, Purchasing, and Training staff in using more research-based interventions in the area of reading, math, writing, behaviors, etc.

Successes so far… • AIMSWEB is up and running for reading • Staff is trained and values the data obtained from the progress monitoring probes • Problem Solving Teams have been created that are built around the premise of keeping students out of Special Education (urging staff to refer students ASAP, rather than wait) • Some good, solid research-based reading interventions have been implemented and we are seeing success in using them • We are able to monitor students more carefully and make adjustments as needed, rather than waiting until the spring NWEA results

Concerns • The need for more research-based interventions (in all of the different areas) and money is an issue • Making it through the first year, implementing the change, keeping staff focused on the positives, rather than the negatives

Budget Cuts • May have to more effectively maximize the Title I time we have • Train more staff members in interventions so not only a select few are capable of administering them, but several • Hold off on purchasing new interventions and use materials currently on hand • Find creative ways to access dollars (grants, etc.)

Words of Wisdom • This is a process, not a “quick fix.” • The majority of staff and administration need to be on board if you want for this program to be successful • Things could get worse before they get better • Change is not easy • Some programs may need to be rebuilt/modified and this takes time • Those in RtI leadership roles need to “believe” in the process (would you buy your own product?)

Things will not go perfectly. You will need to modify things you do as time goes on. • Expect to make mistakes. • Although there are good “implementation steps” to follow, this is not a cookie cutter program. You need to use the recommendations to personalize your program to fit your district and your school. You need to make sure that what you are doing is meeting your needs, not someone else’s.

Questions??

RtI Implementation