Utilizing a District Fidelity Review Team to Ensure Appropriate Referrals

1. Utilizing a District Fidelity Review Team to Ensure Appropriate Referrals Dr. Laura W. Simmons, Special Population Coordinator McKinney ISD Special Populations Department 510 Heard Street McKinney, TX 75069 469-742-6329 lsimmons@mckinneyisd.net

2. Background • McKinney ISD is a suburban school district with a population of 22,000 students. • Approximately 8.5% of these students meet criteria for Special education. • 4 Years ago, our school district began to implement an Rti framework, with students referred for LD and OHI special education assessment once Tier 3 supports were documented and found not to meet the student’s needs.

3. Background Continued • As we grew as a district with our Rti process, it became evident that some type of district-wide fidelity process was needed, especially due to the number of LD & OHI referrals that continued to be recommended by campus Rti teams that often resulted in the student not qualifying for LD and/or OHI. • Variations across campuses was quite evident as to what constituted a “good referral.” • In the meantime, our district adopted a hybrid problem-solving approach, which included the continuation of a campus student support team for our Tier 3 process. Additionally, there were elements of protocol-prescribed interventions build into the Tier plan as well.

4. Why Pursue a District Fidelity Review Process? • We considered many avenues, but wanted a process that could qualitatively conceptualize these elements. • What did seem most feasible was a process in which a district-level team would look closely at each FIE referral made on the campus level prior to consent being obtained, utilizing key indicators to engage conversation. • Thus the advent of the MISD District Fidelity Review Team. • The next step was to establish a protocol for conducting the District Fidelity Review team. Having a consistent and detailed measure of fidelity of implementation supports the efficacy of an Rti model --D. Mellard & E. Johnson, Rti: A Practioner’s Guide to Implementing Response to Intervention, 2008 Corwin Press.

5. Development of the MISD DFR Process • We chose to utilize a standard review process that included a specific documentation form used for all students reviewed by the team. • We looked at various models…we weren’t quite ready as a district to pursue more formal fidelity checks district wide, but found at least one guiding document that had key ideas that would apply to our needs: • New Mexico Public Education Department, Response to Intervention: A Systematic Process to Increase Learning Outcomes for All Students (featured in The Answer Book on Rti “Rti Fideltiy Review Checklist” c. 2007 LRP Publications)

6. Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued • Our next step was deciding upon the key elements that would need to be considered: • Evidence of scientifically-based interventions • Fidelity of interventions • Progress Monitoring Data • Consideration of Exclusionary Factors • Consideration of Determinant Factors • Additional Recommendations or Actions such as including two prong consideration.

7. Development of the MISD DFR Process Continued • We developed a uniform worksheet that would be utilized for each student….

8. District Fidelity Review Worksheet Example

9. Evidence of scientifically-based interventions • In our district, we have a recommended protocol for Tier 3 for addressing academic concerns. • We do ask that the student be afforded at least 6-8 weeks for these small group or 1:1 interventions. For Example: If a student’s referral concern is basic word decoding, most of these students would receive the following deep intervention: Earobics

10. Fidelity of interventions • The delivery of our district and state curriculum in the manner in which it is established to be delivered. • The DFR committee is charged with determining if the interventions were implemented with fidelity for this student including consideration of the core curriculum, extensions, supplemental curriculum, and strategies. • This has helped us to really look at the connection between Tier 1 Core Curriculum—what every student is afforded versus increased supports for Tier 2 and Tier 3.

11. Progress Monitoring Data • Our district primarily utilizes AIMSweb for progress monitoring ELAR areas of concern. • We chose to use TEKing Toward TAKS for Math progress monitoring. • Our behavioral progress monitoring is specific to the student’s referral concerns.

12. Data-based Decision Making • Every student in the Tier process has a written plan that is maintained and adjusted as needed for the students. • Each campus has an Rti team that periodically reviews these students, especially those on Tier 3. • Our district expectation is that progress monitoring data should be utilized to adjust programming as needed.

13. Consideration of Exclusionary Factors: • Does the student have a visual, hearing, or motor disability? • Does the student meet criteria for a student with mental retardation? • Does the student meet criteria for a student with Emotional Disturbance? • Does the student have cultural factors of interest? • Does the student have environmental or economic disadvantage issues of interest? • Is the student considered Limited English Proficiency? • Has the student received adequate educational opportunity (including consideration of school attendance records)?

14. Consideration of Determinant Factors • Did the student make any progress with use of interventions? • Did the student receive interventions with appropriate provider over a period of time?

15. At the Conclusion of Reviewing Each Student…… • District Rti Fidelity Review Committee’s Recommendations • Proceed with campus RTI recommendation for Referral for FIE for LD/OHI or other. • Tried to list very specific referral concern. • Return to the campus RTI for the proposed actions

16. Challenges Encountered This Year…

17. Challenge #1--Constitution of the District Fidelity Review Committee • Ensuring that we had well-balanced representation on the district team. • Initially, we started off with a small team that included five Rti specialist, the district Rti coordinator, and representatives from the evaluation team. • Mid-year, we added representation from campus leadership, instructional specialist, central office curriculum leadership, and Bilingual/ESL leadership to the teams.

18. Challenge #2—Needed More Teams to Share the Wealth • As additional key members were added to the committee, we realized that we needed three elementary teams to accommodate the needs of our students, and one secondary team. • Teams each included a campus administrator, as well as central office leadership including C&I and Bilingual/ESL. • The District Rti Coordinator was charged with scheduling students and keeping up with the weekly agenda.

19. Challenge #3—Adequate Representation for the Student Being Discussed • One of the concerns brought forth from our campuses about the new process, was feeling that perhaps our committee was just looking at paper, and not considering the whole child. • We never intended to be a closed committee, so this was an easy fix—we asked that campuses send at least one representative that is familiar with the student being discussed as well as a campus administrator if possible.

20. Challenge #4—Time Management • There was always lots to talk about, but never enough time. • A few of our leaders in the group put together a Word template that campuses could use to summarize key information for the student. • Information included the following: referral concerns, educational history, interventions attempted, and progress monitoring data.

21. Challenge #5: Training • Additionally, the DFR teams are charged with determining if the student being reviewed is a student who is suspected of a disability and demonstrates the need for specially designed instruction. • The example of J. Walsh’s Four Quadrant Analysis has been critical to building capacity in our group to better review each student, especially the differentiation of Quadrants three and four:

22. 4 Quatrant Analysis (J. Walsh) Quadrant 4: These students need specially designed instruction due to a disability that adversely affects the student’s educational performance. Versus Quadrant 3: These students need specially designed instruction for reasons other than a physical or mental impairment—LEP and WBFWR. --This has been one of the greatest areas of growth for our campuses as we utilize Tiers 2 & 3 support more readily before considering a referral.

23. Added Value Gained to the District Rti Process… • Increased collaboration with special education staff and general education staff. • Conversations that are vital to our growth for the Rti process • Considerations to the Rti process such as “What really is Tier 1…Tier 2….Tier 3 in MISD?

24. Added Value Gained to the District RtiProcess…The Stats • Over 140 students have been discussed this school year by our DFR committees. • 115 + students were referred for an FIE • The others were referred back to their campus Rti teams for specific recommendations, including possible general ed dyslexia testing. • DNQ rate is pending.

25. Our Next Step • Continue the process for the next coming year on the district level. • Work with campus Rti teams to build capacity to perform this type of review at a campus level, thus enabling campuses ownership of the process.