Schools and Families in RTI: A Partnership Opportunity

1
Schools and Families in RTI A Partnership
Opportunity

• Amy L. Reschly, Ph.D.
• University of Georgia

2
Working with Families

• The evidence is consistent, positive, and
  convincing families have a major influence on
  their childrens achievement in school and
  through life
• Henderson Mapp (2002, p. 7)

3

• Out of school time..
• From birth to the age of 18, students spend more
  than 90 of their time outside of schools.
• Walberg
• Recent study from ETS four variables that are
  out of the direct control of schools
• single parent household,
• attendance,
• amount of daily reading at home, and
• amount of TV watching
• that predicted student success on state reading
  standardized tests with impressive accuracy
  Barton Coley (2007).

4

• Efforts to improve student achievement, and close
  the achievement gap among various groups of
  students (e.g., those in poverty, racial/ethnic
  groups, English learners), must take into account
  the power of out-of-school time
• Weiss, Little, Bouffard, 2005
• Kids start school from platforms of different
  heights and teachers dont have a magic wand they
  can wave to get kids on the same platform. If
  were really interested in raising overall levels
  of achievement and in closing the achievement
  gap, we need to pay as much attention to the
  starting line as we do the finish line.
• (Coley, quoted in Winerip, 2007)

5

• Families have an enormous impact on student
  outcomes but what they do is more important than
  who they are
• Family process variables account for a much
  greater portion of the variance in achievement
  (60) than those related to status (25)
• Kellaghan et al., 1993
• Recent study by Milne Plourd (2006) low-SES
  families with high achieving children,
  highlighted the following
• educational resources and influences having
  materials available, a regular time set aside to
  do academic work and limiting the amount of tv
• Relationships spending time with and talking
  with their child, and
• Causes of Success. When asked about their role in
  promoting student success, the parents spoke
  about providing support and guidance, as well as
  boundaries and expectations for their children,
  and the consistent message that education is
  important.

6
Factors Related to Positive OutcomesHome
Support for Learning ComponentsYsseldyke
Christenson, 2002

• Home Expectations and Attributions High,
  realistic expectations about schoolwork are
  communicated to the child and the value of effort
  and working hard in school is emphasized.
• Discipline Orientation There is an
  authoritative, not permissive nor authoritarian,
  approach to discipline, and the child is
  monitored and supervised by the parents.
• Home-affective Environment The parent-child
  relationship is characterized by a healthy
  connectedness it is generally positive and
  supportive.
• Parent Participation There is an educative home
  environment, and others participate in the
  childs schooling and learning, at home and/or at
  school.
• Structure for Learning Organization and daily
  routines facilitate the completion of schoolwork
  and support for the childs academic learning.

7
Legislation and initiatives targeting family
involvement

• No Child Left Behind (Epstein, 2005)
• Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act
• National Education Goals (Goals 1 8 National
  Education Goals Panel, 1999)
• Policy and position statements by numerous
  organizations
• e.g., PTA (1998, 2000), National Association of
  School Psychologists (2005)
• Accrediting bodies such as National Council for
  Accreditation on Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002)
  and even state educator licensing guidelines
  (Radcliffe, Malone, Nathan, 1994).
• not only ensuring family rights but a
  universal goal of encouraging family engagement
  and involvement in education
• Not there yet. Vision of partnerships among
  educators and families not reached
• And. were unprepared
• need for both pre-service and inservice training

8
Status of Family Engagement Field
Shifting away from Currently
Why work with families? How? What works?
Parent involvement Family Involvement/Engagement
School-defined involvement Varied definitions of involvement and support for learning at school and in the home Different types of involvement different outcomes
Activity lists Any number of activities may accomplish a specific goal or outcome -(Epstein Sheldon, 2006). Attention to fit Evidence-based interventions
ss
9

• Carlson Christenson, (2005)
• Areas reviewed parent training and therapy,
  consultation, involvement, and family focused
  early childhood interventions
• Moderate to large effect sizes across areas
• Most effective interventions were those with a
  systems orientation
• collaboration interventions w/ two-way
  communication, monitoring and dialogue
• Focused parent education programs (specific
  behavior or learning outcomes)
• Parent involvement programs with parents as
  tutors in specific subjects
• Parent consultation

10

• The evidence is consistent, positive, and
  convincing families have a major influence on
  their childrens achievement in school and
  through life When schools, families, and
  community groups work together to support
  learning, children tend to do better in school,
  stay in school longer, and like school more.
• Henderson Mapp, 2002

11
Families, Schools, and School-Family Partnerships

• Development in context
• School-Family Partnerships
• Families in RTI

12
Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner
13
Three-Legged Stool Students, Families, and
Schools
14
(No Transcript)
15
Common factors across home-school-community
related to student competence

• Shared Standards and Expectations The level of
  expected performance held by key adults for the
  student is congruent across home and school, and
  reflects a belief that the student can learn.
• Consistent Structure The overall routine and
  monitoring provided by key adults for the student
  have been discussed and are congruent across home
  and school.
• Cross-setting Opportunity to Learn The variety
  of learning options available to the youth during
  school hours and outside of school time (i.e.,
  home and community) supports the students
  learning.
• Mutual Support The guidance provided by, the
  communication between, and the interest shown by
  adults to facilitate student progress in school
  is effective. It is what adults do on an ongoing
  basis to help the student learn and achieve.
• Positive, Trusting Relationships The amount of
  warmth and friendliness praise and recognition
  and the degree to which the adult-youth
  relationship is positive and respectful. It
  includes how adults in the home, in the school,
  and in the community work together to help the
  student be a learner.
• Modeling Parents and teachers demonstrate
  desired behaviors and commitment and value toward
  learning and working hard in their daily lives to
  the student.

16
Implications

• We cannot understand student competence or
  difficulties as a function of home or school
  must consider the entire system (children,
  family, school, community, peers)
• Schools and homes are the primary socializing and
  learning contexts for students. Relationships
  between families and school personnel are
  important for promoting competence -gt Mesosystem
• Risk is not located within student, home, or
  school systems - distributed across systems and
  represented in interactions. (Pianta Walsh,
  1996)
• High risk lack of congruence, poor relationships
  between home and school
• Low risk family and school systems are
  well-functioning, positive relationships promote
  congruence and shared responsibility

17
What does it mean to have a partnership with
families?

• Purpose enhance student outcomes
• Shared responsibility, shared goals/priorities,
  shared accountability
• Fantuzzo, Tight, Childs, 2000 Jordan et al.,
  2000
• With attention to Quality of connections,
  preventive-solution-oriented focus, and
  problem-solving
• Christenson Sheridan, 2001

18
Response to Intervention

• Calls for reform over many years to address
• Within child conceptualizations of educational
  difficulties
• Too little time for prevention and early
  intervention
• More rhetoric than action in creating meaningful
  opportunities for parent engagement
• Assessment conducted for the purpose of
  eligibility determination rather than
  intervention
• Reliance on special education placement as a
  means of addressing student difficulties

19
Promise of RTI

• May address many of these criticisms
• Focus on all students
• contexts essential to success implications for
  assessment and intervention
• Changes inherent in RTI an opportunity to
  meaningfully engage families
• Prevention, screening, and early intervention
• Frequent systematic data collection
• Focus on Problem-Solving
• Change from where to teach to how, what and is it
  working? to produce optimal student learning
• Families are necessary, not optional

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Parental Roles in Assessment(drawn from
Christenson Sheridan, 2001)
23
Parents as Policy Makers Advocates (drawn from
Christenson Sheridan, 2001)
24
Expectations and Benefits of RTI for students.

• Greater opportunities for
• Screening and early intervention for academic or
  behavioral concerns
• Congruence in messages between home and school
• Participation in their own interventions,
  including data collection, goal setting,
  preferences, self-reported conditions surrounding
  academic and behavioral difficulties

25
Expectations and Benefits of RTI for families.

• Opportunity to be involved at the first
  indication of a problem or concern
• Critical source of information about the student
• Necessary partner in the assessment and
  intervention process
• Shared responsibility for student outcomes

26
Expectations and Benefits of RTI for educators.

• Less time in traditional assessment practices
  more time spent in consultation, screening,
  direct intervention, and program evaluation
• Consideration of the broader learning environment
• Shared responsibility for student outcomes

27
References

• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
  development. Cambridge, MA Harvard University
  Press.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems
  theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child
  development Six theories of child development
  Revised formulations and current issues (pp.
  187-249). London Jessica Kingsley.
• Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement
  challenge What really works in the classroom?
  New York Guilford Press.
• Christenson, S.L., Anderson, A.R. (2002).
  Commentary The centrality of the learning
  context for students' academic enabler skills.
  School Psychology Review, 31(3), 378-393.
• Christenson, S. L., Carlson, C. (2005).
  Evidence-based parent and family interventions in
  school psychology State of scientifically based
  practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 20,
  525-528. Christenson, S. L., Sheridan, S. M.
  (2001). School and families Creating essential
  connections for learning. NY Guilford Press.
• Christenson, S. L., Peterson, C. J. (2006).
  Family, school, and community influences on
  childrens learning A literature review. All
  Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN
  University of Minnesota Extension Service.
  www.parenting.umn.edu
• Christenson, S. L., Sheridan, S. M. (2001).
  School and families Creating essential
  connections for learning. NY Guilford Press.
• Epstein, J. L., Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving
  forward Ideas for research on school, family,
  and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad R.
  Serlin (Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in
  education Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry
  (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.

28

• Ginsburg-Block, M., Manz, P. H., McWayne, C.
  (in press). Partnering to foster achievement in
  reading and mathematics. In S.L. Christenson and
  A.L. Reschly (Eds). Handbook of School Family
  Partnerships. New York Routledge.
• Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new
  wave of evidence The impact of school,family,
  and community connections on student achievement.
  Austin, TX Southwest Educational Development
  Laboratory.
• Jordan, C., Orzco, E., Averett, A. (2001).
  Emerging issues in school, family, and community
  connections. Austin, TX Southwest Educational
  Development Laboratory.
• Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., Bloom,
  B. S. (1993). The home environment and school
  learning Promoting parental involvement in the
  education of children. San Francisco
  Jossey-Bass.
• Moles, O. (1993). Building school-family
  partnerships for learning Workshops for urban
  educators. Washington, DC Office of Educational
  Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department
  of Education.
• Nye, C., Turner, H., Schwartz, J. (2007).
  Approaches to parent involvement for improving
  the academic performance of elementary school age
  children. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from
  http//www.campbellcollaboration.org/frontend2.asp
  ?ID9
• Pianta, R., Walsh, D. B. (1996). High-risk
  children in schools Constructing sustaining
  relationships. NY Routledge.
• Reschly, A.L. (2008a). Ecological approaches to
  working with families. Symposium with Gutkin,
  T.B., Doll, B.J., Reschly, A.L., Stoiber, K.C.,
  Hintze, J.M., Conoley, J.C. (2008, August).
  Ecological Approaches to School Psychological
  Services Putting Theory Into Action. Held at the
  2008 annual meeting of the American Psychological
  Association. Boston, MA.
• Reschly, A.L. (2008b). Schools, families and
  response to intervention. Invited piece for the
  RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning
  Disabilities. Available on-line at
  http//www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/Family/ar/Scho
  ols-Familes-and-Response-to-Intervention

29

• Reschly, A., Coolong, M. A., Christenson, S. L.,
  Gutkin, T. B. (2007). Contextual influences and
  RTI Critical issues and strategies. In S. R.
  Jimerson, M. K. Burns , A. M. VanDerHeyden
  (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention
  The science and practice of assessment and
  intervention. New York Springer
• Reschly, A. L, Christenson, S. L. (2009).
  Parents as essential partners for fostering
  students learning outcomes. In R. Gilman, E. S.
  Huebner, M. Furlong (Eds). A handbook of
  positive psychology in schools (pp. 257-272). New
  York Routledge.
• Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on
  evidence-based parent and family interventions
  Will what we know now influence what we do in the
  future? School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 518-524.
  
• Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in
  educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65,
  397-400.
• Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., Bouffard, S.
  (2005). Participation in youth programs
  Enrollment, attendance, and engagement. Special
  Issue New Directions for Youth Development, 105.
  
• Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L. (2002).
  FAAB Functional Assessment of Academic Behavior.
  Longmont, CO Sopris West.

30
Resources

• All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis,
  MN University of Minnesota Extension Service.
  www.parenting.umn.edu
• RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning
  Disabilities. www.rtinetwork.org
• Harvard Family Research Project
• http//www.hfrp.org/
• Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, Dr. Susan
  Sheridan, University of Nebraska.
  http//cehs.unl.edu/edpsych/graduate/spCbc.shtml

31
Contact Information

• Amy Reschly, Ph.D.
• Department of Educational Psychology IT
• 325N Aderhold
• University of Georgia
• Athens, GA 30602
• 706.583.5503
• reschly_at_uga.edu