Livingston Parish Public Schools LPPS Response to Intervention Program Presenter: Eric Penalber RTI

1
Livingston Parish Public Schools (LPPS) -Response
to Intervention ProgramPresenter Eric
PenalberRTI Elementary Academic Coordinator
2
Dual-Discrepancy RTI Model of Learning
Disability (Fuchs 2003)
3
RTI School-Wide Three-Tier Framework
(Kovaleski, 2003 Vaughn, 2003)
Tier III A student who has not made progress at
Tier II is moved to Tier III and the intervention
is intensified. At this Tier the student
receives more intense intervention.
4
Putting the RTI Model into Practice
5
LPPS RTI 2005-2006

• In 2005-2006 three RTI interventionists were
  assigned to provide the following services to 8
  elementary schools
• consultation with principals, teachers, and pupil
  appraisal personnel
• analysis of benchmark and progress monitoring
  data
• direct intervention services to general education
  students identified as at risk based on
  benchmark data

6
Universal Screening

• Benchmarking was conducted in the fall, winter,
  spring in 8 elementary schools
• All students in grades 1-3 were benchmarked in
  the area of oral reading fluency using the System
  to Enhance Educational Performance (STEEP)
  assessment tool

7

• Data was collected and reported to the principal
  on the assessment date
• Based on the data collected, general education
  students identified as at risk received
  interventions at least 2 times per week
• These students were progress monitored weekly in
  the area of oral reading fluency

8
When a student was identified at risk on STEEP,
the RTI Interventionist

• Selected an evidence-based academic intervention
• Collected baseline data
• Provided intervention services
• Progress monitored and graphed intervention data
  weekly
• Used the students graph in making data-based
  decisions

9
Interventions

• Headsprout
• The Reading Center
• SRA Decoding
• Also utilized various strategies such as
  flashcards, the word sandwich, repeated reading
  with error correction, etc.

10
LPPS RTI 2006-2007

• In 2006-2007, five RTI interventionists were
  assigned to provide the following services to 13
  elementary schools
• Graphing and analysis of benchmark and progress
  monitoring data
• Consultation with principals, teachers, and pupil
  appraisal personnel
• Supervision of interventions

11

• In 2006-2007, ten paraprofessionals were employed
  to assist with implementation of intervention
  services in the 13 elementary schools (these
  were the non-DIBELS schools)
• Supervision of each paraprofessional was
  conducted by an RTI interventionist

12

• In addition, the RTI team conducted in-services
  at each of the 13 elementary schools to inform
  the faculty of the following
• purpose of RTI
• available support
• plans for universal screening
• procedures for referral to the School Building
  Level Committee
• evidence based interventions
• and the utilization of benchmark and progress
  monitoring data

13
Universal Screening

• Benchmarking using the STEEP assessment tool was
  conducted in the fall, winter, and spring in 13
  elementary schools.
• All students in grades 1-3 were assessed in the
  area of oral reading fluency.

14

• These students were progress monitored weekly in
  oral reading fluency and any additional deficit
  areas as identified by the Aimsweb early literacy
  assessments.
• Aimsweb assessment probes were used for all
  weekly progress monitoring.
• The Aimsweb data management system was used to
  graph all weekly progress monitoring data.

15
Interventions

• Waterford Reading Program
• Voyager Passport
• Headsprout
• The Reading Center
• Reading Upgrade
• Also utilize various strategies such as
  flashcards, the word sandwich, repeated reading
  with error correction, etc.

16
Professional Development on RTI

• Parish wide professional development was provided
  by a national consultant,
• Dr. Mark Shinn, to all district principals and
  administrators on the purpose and impact of RTI.

17
LPPS RTI 2007-2008

• Ten (10) Academic Intervention Specialists
  (AISes) were employed to provide the following
  academic intervention services
• Graphing and analysis of benchmark and progress
  monitoring data
• Consultation with principals, teachers, and pupil
  appraisal personnel
• Supervision of interventions
• Supervision of paraprofessionals
• In 2007-2008, thirteen (13) paraprofessionals
  were employed to assist with implementation of
  intervention services in the 23 elementary
  schools

18

• In addition, the RTI team conducted in-services
  at each of the 23 elementary schools to inform
  the faculty of the following
• purpose of RTI
• available support
• plans for universal screening
• procedures for referral to the School Building
  Level Committee
• evidence based interventions
• and the utilization of benchmark and progress
  monitoring data

19

• All students in grades K-3 were benchmarked
  using the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic
  Educational Skills) assessment tool in the fall,
  winter, and spring in every LPPS elementary
  school.
• Students identified as intensive or strategic
  received daily interventions in their classrooms
  or in a literacy lab setting
• Students identified as intense who were referred
  by their teachers for Tier II interventions
  received an additional 30 min., 3X per week.

20

• These students were progress monitored weekly in
  oral reading fluency and any additional deficit
  areas as identified by the DIBELS benchmark
  assessments.
• DIBELS assessment probes were used for all weekly
  progress monitoring.
• The DIBELS and the Aimsweb data management
  systems were used to graph all weekly progress
  monitoring data.

21

• DIBELS benchmark and progress monitoring scores
  were made available to interventionists so that
  interventionists could monitor student progress
  in DIBELS and intervene efficiently and
  appropriately
• The intervention process includes the use of
  consultation by way of a team approach. This
  approach included working closely with the K-3
  reading initiative teachers to ensure that
  students with deficits in reading received
  appropriate interventions.

22
Interventions

• Waterford
• Earobics
• Rigby
• Neuhaus Kits
• Headsprout
• Reading Upgrade
• Also using various strategies such as flashcards,
  modeled math, peer assisted reading, etc.

23
Consultation Teams

• Consultation teams consisting of administrators,
  teachers, speech therapist, K-3 facilitators,
  curriculum coordinators, and academic
  interventionist were developed in each school
• Specific consultations with teachers of students
  occurred as per teacher and/or speech therapist
  request
• Consultation teams monitored the academic
  progress of students identified as at-risk on
  DIBELS measures.

24
Louisiana School Improvement (LaSig Grant) Focus

• Students attending two elementary schools with
  large numbers of intensive (at-risk) students
  were benchmarked in math, reading, and written
  language
• Goal was to assist with understanding and
  interpreting data for use with designing
  interventions

25
National Consultant

• Professional development opportunities related to
  RTI were offered by way of the RTI team and Dr.
  Dan Reschly.
• Dr. Reschly provided opportunities designed to
  increase the understanding of school personnel
  within the district as to how RTI and
  benchmark/progress monitoring data could be used
  to improve overall student performance and
  classroom instruction.

26
Future Goals

• We hope to benchmark all students 1-5 using
  Aimsweb math CBM assessment probes.
• This data will be used to develop parish wide
  grade specific norms in the basic skill areas of
  addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
  division.
• This data will also provide grade and measure
  specific parish wide normative growth rates.

27

• Plans are being made to in benchmark all 4th and
  5th grade students in oral reading fluency and
  maze.
• This data will then be used to provide
  interventions to struggling learners in these
  upper elementary grades.

28
Just a Few Barriers

• Lack of knowledge and experience with RTI at
  administrative and staff level
• Change in perception
• Fear of unknown
• Lack of resources, support, space
• Scheduling concerns

29
Breaking Down the Barriers
30
Lack of RtI Knowledge and Experience

• Professional Development including not only what
  RTI is but how to do it at the
• Parish level
• Central Office administrators
• Principals
• School level
• Teachers
• Guidance Counselors
• School Building Level Committee
• Para educators
• Related Service providers

31
Perceptual Changes

• Build rapport
• Accessibility of interventionists
• Evidence of benefit at the parish, school, and
  student level

32
Conquering Fear

• Staffs role clearly defined
• Developed guidelines and procedures
• Encouragement
• Open dialogue between interventionists,
  principals, staff, and parents
• Understanding of new terminology and application

33
Resources and Support

• Changing staff roles
• Utilization of 15 of IDEIA funds to support RTI
  model
• Re-allocating space to support interventions
  within the schools

34
Scheduling

• Master schedule to support interventions
• Use of ancillary class time (i.e. music, art)
• Efficient transition times
• Centers within the classroom

35
The Alphabet of Establishing an Effective RTI
Program

• A Align with school administrators
• B Believe in what you are doing
• C Collaborate and Communicate
• D Decide on a focus
• E Establish procedures
• G Guidance
• H Help, Help, Help
• I Involve everyone, i.e., paras, teachers,
  etc.
• J Join school efforts to improve
• K Know available interventions

36

• L Listen to concerns
• M Motivate students and staff
• N Never falter
• O Observe program outcomes
• P Persevere
• Q Question practices
• R Rely on staff
• S Serve students
• T Teach others
• U Unite to meet student needs
• V Vocalize concerns
• W Wisdom
• X eXtra mile
• Y Yearn to do more
• Z Zealous

37
For a comprehensive directory of up-to-date RTI
Resources available for free on the Internet,
visit RTI_Wire athttp//www.jimwrightonline.com
/php/rti/rti_wire.php
38
Resources

• Chafouleas, S.M., McDougal, J.L., Riley-Tillman,
  T.C., Panahon, C.J., Hilt, A.M. (2005).  What
  do Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) measure?
  An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct
  observation for off-task behavior.  Psychology in
  the Schools, 42(6), 669-676.
• Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention
  responsiveness Conceptual and technical issues.
  Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 18(3),
  172-186.
• Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to
  Intervention an Alternative Approach to the
  Identification of Learning Disabilities.
  Retrieved January 9, 2006, from
  http//www.air.org/ldsummit/download/Gresham
  Final 08-10-01.doc
• Individuals with Disabilities Education
  Improvement Act, P.L. 108-466 (2004, 2005). 34
  C.F.R. 300 (Proposed Regulations). Retrieved
  January 15, 2006, from http//a257.g.akamaitech.ne
  t/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/
  2005/pdf/05-11804.pdf

39
Resources

• Kovaleski, J. F. (2003). The three-tier model of
  identifying learning disabilities Critical
  program features and system issues. Paper
  presented at the National Research Center on
  Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Interventi
  on Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
• Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems
  Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New
  York Guilford.
• Shinn, M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining
  academic problems CBM screening and eligibility
  procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum
  based measurement Assessing special children
  (pp.90-129). New York The Guilford Press.
• Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions
  that work. NAESP National Association of
  Elementary School Principals Leadership Compass,
  2(4) pp.1,6.
• Wright, J., Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the
  tutor seat Building schools' capacity to help
  struggling readers through a cross-age
  peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools,
  43(1), 99-107.