One Districts Story in

1
One Districts Story in Implementing Problem
Solving RTI Illinois ASPIRE North Site
Visitation Day
Indian Prairie District 204
2
Illinois ASPIREAlliance for School-based
Problem-solving Intervention Resources in
Education

• Project Goal Establish and implement a
  coordinated, regionalized system of personnel
  development that will increase school systems
  capacity to provide early intervening services
  with an emphasis on reading, aligned with the
  general education curriculum, to at-risk students
  and students with disabilities, as measured by
  improved student progress and performance.

Illinois ASPIRE is a State Personnel Development
Grant-Funded Initiative of ISBE with Funds from
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSERS)
of the US Department of Education. All Funding
is From Federal Funds
3
Illinois ASPIREAlliance for School-based
Problem-solving Intervention Resources in
Education

• Objectives
• Deliver research-based professional development
  and technical assistance in Problem-Solving
  Service Delivery Systems, Response-to-Intervention
  (RTI), scientifically based reading instruction,
  and Standards Aligned Classrooms (SAC).
• Increase the participation of parents in
  decision-making across district sites.
• Incorporate professional development content into
  higher education general and special education
  preservice graduate level curricula.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of project activities.

Illinois ASPIRE is a State Personnel Development
Grant-Funded Initiative of ISBE with Funds from
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSERS)
of the US Department of Education. All Funding
is From Federal Funds
4

Special thanks to the following contributors

• George Batsche, EdD
• David Prasse, PhD
• Jeff Grimes, EdD
• David Tilly, PhD
• Mark Shinn, PhD
• Tim Thomas, EdD
• Carrie DeLaCruz NSSED coaches
• Leighton Helwig
• Lisa Haubert
• Mike Hoag

5
(No Transcript)
6
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
7
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Indian Prairie Community Unit School District 204

• Chicago Suburban Unit School District
• 28,000 students across 31 buildings
• 3800 students identified special education
• Over 100 languages spoken in our students homes
• 1,948 certified staff members

8
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Previous Experience Previous Policy
9
What we were already doing that helped pave the
way . . .
Inclusion since 1992
CBM progress monitoring since 1994 CBM local
building norms in 3 buildings since 1995
New Pre-Referral process since 1997 focused
on problem identification, measurable goals,
and progress monitoring
Functional Academic Assessment as part of
Eligibility process since 1997
District-wide CBM Norms in reading, math,
writing since 1999
Moved away from a primarily IQ/Ach discrepancy
model in 2000
10
However . . .
Dissatisfaction due to Disjointed Initiatives
Lack of common literacy curriculum
Separation between sp ed and gen ed
Multiple procedures/entry criteria for different
programs
Onset of NCLB IDEA 97 04 higher
accountability
11
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
The Basics . .
12
District Assessment Plan
Shift District approach from Assessment OF
Learning to Assessment FOR Learning. Shift
Thinking to Every Ed
13
Board Goal 1 2005-2006

• Implement a systematic, problem-solving model
  that is based on a continuous improvement cycle
  of instruction, assessment, strategies, and
  interventions.

14
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Previous Experience Previous Policy
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
Implementation of RTI/PS
includes
Training
15
Building a District Foundation for
Problem-Solving

• 2003-04 Called for schools interested in
  piloting Problem Solving
• Several schools attended NSSED Overview
• 2004 Incorporated Problem Solving into Board
  Goal
• - Pilot Problem Solving with 4 schools (3 EL, 1
  MS)
• 2004- District teams attended NSSED series of
  training cycles
• - Problem Solving - 1 Board of Education Goal
  and primary focus for Student Achievement in
  Districts
• long-range Strategic Plan
• 2005- All 31 K-12 district schools will complete
  training and begin implementation within 2 year
  cycle

16
District's 2005-2006 Plan
3 Levels of Implementation
1st 2nd 3rd
17
District's 2006-2007 Plan
3 Levels of Implementation
1st 2nd 3rd
18
Who gets trained?

• Team of 5-6 from each building
• Principal always
• 2 Gen Ed Teachers always
• (e.g.,1 primary 1 intermediate)
• School Psychologist
• Remedial or Sp Ed teacher
• Sp/Lang, Soc Wk, etc.

This team is then responsible for bringing the
information back to their school. Theyre the PS
leaders for the school.
19
1st Year PS Training
Process
Day 1 - Overview/Roles/Law
Day 2 - Problem Identification Analysis
Day 3 - Plan Development Implementation
Day 4 - Plan Evaluation, Poster Sharing,
Evidence-Based Interventions
All Staff Overview Updates
Data Collection
Day 1 - Overview
Day 2 - Benchmarking Ad/Sc Day 3 - Progress
Monitoring Ad/Sc
PBIS
20
2nd Year PS Training
Problem Analysis
Curriculum Based Evaluation in Reading
Intervention
Reading Intervention Exploration
All Staff Overview Updates
Advanced Data Analysis
Academic (CBM, etc.) Behavioral (PBIS)
Problem Solving about Problem Solving
21
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Previous Experience Previous Policy
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
supported by
Coaches
22
Essential District Supports

• District Level Problem Solving Coaches
• Ongoing staff development Support

Year 1 0.5 FTE Year 2 1.6 FTE Year 3 2.7
FTE
23
Coaching provides . . .

• Push-in, continuing staff development
• Accountability for quality implementation
• Moral support
• Model-Lead-Test of concepts taught
• through training

24
Essential District Supports

• Building Level Coaches
• During 1st year buildings designate 2 staff
• members as internal coaches general ed/
• support staff
• Building coaches district coaches meet monthly

25
Essential District Supports

• Problem Solving about Problem-Solving .
• PS Leadership meetings (asst
• superintendents, curriculum directors,
• supervisors, district coaches)
• Principals meetings
• Department, related services, support meetings

26
Goal for 1st Year Problem Solving Schools

• Create a Building Plan
• AIMSweb /or PBIS data base
• Plan for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Intervention
• Work through 1 cycle of PS Process with
• 3 individuals or groups

27
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Previous Experience Previous Policy
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
Implementation of RTI/PS
includes
Training
supported by
involves
Coaches
Changing Roles
28
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Previous Experience Previous Policy
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
Implementation of RTI/PS
includes
Training
supported by
by looking at
involves
Coaches
Data
Changing Roles
29
Academic Outcomes
ISAT School Report Card triangle charts
CBM AIMSweb (benchmarking, strategic
monitoring, progress monitoring)
triangle charts
30
R-CBM Data Triangle Example
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Social Behavioral Outcomes
PBIS/SWIS data - office referrals location,
teacher, time,
behavior,
motivation, consequence,
referrals per day/month sort
by demographic groups
Behavior Support Plan data
34
Process Outcomes implementation integrity
Self Study team ratings of Problem Solving
process
Coach Ratings/Case Reviews coach observation of
process at each tier rating of cases
PBIS/SET data - observation, interview, surveys
of PBIS process
35
Problem Solving Self Study I
36
Problem Solving Self Study 2
Problem-Solving Self-Study Beginning Features
Version Principal-Led Problem-Solving
Grant Northern Suburban Special Education
District Instructions This document is designed
to assist school-based educational staff in the
self-evaluation of their problem-solving systems
and activities. The following interpretive scale
is used to indicate ratings in each area. Rating
Scale 1 Objective Never Met/No Evidence At
All 2 Objective Rarely Met/Minimal
Documentation or Evidence is Present 3
Objective Sometimes Met/Some Evidence or
Documentation 4 Objective Often Met/Documented
Most of the Time 5 Objective Always Met and
Consistently Document
37
Coach Ratings / Case Review
38
Attitudes/Perceptions Outcomes
Training feedback surveys
Staff Problem Solving surveys
39
Staff Attitudes Perceptions
PROBLEM SOLVING / FLEXIBLE SERVICE DELIVERY
SYSTEM EVALUATION Please take a few minutes to
respond to these statements and questions
regarding the implementation of Problem Solving
in your building this year. All responses will
be kept confidential and will only be reported in
summary form. Current Position . . .
40
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Previous Experience Previous Policy
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
create changes in
by looking at
Process Eligibility
Data
41
PS Building Calendar
Problem Solving District Coach Building
Expectations Building _______________
Coach ____________________
Year _________________ Cycle 1
42
Process
Tier 1 Screening of All Students
3x/year Analyze growth in terms of normative
criterion reference Develop district, building,
grade level goals based on data
Tier 3 Monitor individual progress
weekly More assessment of skills/needs For
some, entitlement consideration
Tier 2 Find At-Risk Sts Assess further Write
group goals Monitor progress
Individual Level
Building/Grade Level
District/Building Level
43
Curriculum
TIER 3
TIER 2
TIER 1
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
Trophies
K 1 2 3
4 5
TEXT TALK
44
Tier 1 Universal Process
Grade Level Data Review Meetings
Current Triangle s Goal s Action Plan - IPF
45
Tier 2 Targeted Group Process
Grade Level Data Review Meetings
Current Triangle s Goal s Action Plan - IPF
46
Tier 3 Intensive Process
Additional Assessment CBE Cant/Wont
Data Collection BEFORE Plan Development
47
Eligibility Criteria

• Change has not significantly increased or
  decreased
• districts LD numbers

• Currently working on changing criteria to be
  aligned with
• Response to Intervention (RtI) as defined by
  IDEA, 2004,
• new NASDSE RtI document, Illinois FSDS/RtI
• Entitlement Committee

48
Bigger Picture Why do we want to implement?
Future Experience Full Implementation
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
Previous Experience Previous Policy
49
Where are we going from here?
Future Experience Full Implementation
50
Strengths Challenges

• District Leadership
• Superintendent
• Central Office, School Board
• District Collaboration across departments
  curriculum, assessment, student services
• More effective use of resources
• Comprehensive Strategic Plan for District
• Incorporate PS into SIP,
• NCLB activities, Grants
• Planning for short term/ long-term commitment
• Improved student outcomes, early interventions
  and supports

• Competing Priorities
• many focus areas across district
• Multiple Initiatives
• Time commitment initially
• Leadership Styles Perspectives and level of
  understanding-
• Staff Turnover new staff, principals, etc.
• Anxiety and reluctancy to Change

51
Our Next Steps -

• Incorporate system changes into district
  guidelines, processes, paperwork, budget/staffing
  design.
• Continue to demonstrate connections to other
  aspects of educational system.
• Expand networking and sharing of ideas through a
  systemic approach at a district, regional and
  state level. Continue involvement in the state
  Problem-Solving professional development grant.

52
Closing Thoughts

• An idea is never given to you without you being
  given the power to make it reality. Richard Bach