A Model for Response to Intervention RtI at the Secondary Level

1
A Model for Response to Intervention (RtI) at the
Secondary Level

• Dave Ertl, Principal
• Sara Johnson, Assistant Principal
• Chisago Lakes High School
• Holly Windram, Asst. Special Education Director
• St. Croix River Education District (SCRED)
• (former School Psychologist at CLHS)
• Benjamin Silberglitt, Senior Consultant
• TIES

2
Advance Organizer

• Introduction
• District/School background
• Terminology
• Rationale RtI implementation at secondary level
• How data and technology are used for
  decision-making
• Tier 1 and Tier 2 academic and social/behavior
  instruction
• Outcome data
• Roles for school administrators

3
Disclaimer

• Research offers few strategies or models to
  implement RtI in secondary settings
• (e.g., Mastropieri Scruggs, 2005)
• No magical solutions or tricks
• Takes 5-8 years for secondary settings
• (e.g., Edmonson- Bohan, et al., 2005)
• No additional resources!
• What we are presenting today
• Strategies that are empirically-supported,
  data-based, and have been field tested in a real
  school with real students and teachers!

4
Who we are District

• 4000 students
• Predominantly white (96)
• Middle SES (Median income 78,000)
• Member of St. Croix River Education District
  (SCRED)
• 5 member districts Rush City, East Central,
  Hinckley/Finlayson, Pine City, Chisago Lakes

5
Who we are Chisago Lakes High School

• 1200 students
• 10 special education
• 8 free/reduced lunch
• 1 English Language Learning
• Four, 85 minute blocks
• 98 graduation rate
• Credit increase 29 by 2009-10

6
Curriculum-Based Measures (CBM)

• Standardized, validated, short duration tests
  used to evaluate the effects of instructional
  programs in the basic skill areas such as
  reading, writing, math computation, etc. (e.g.,
  Deno, 1985, 1989 Shinn 1998).
• CBM Reading Words read correct in one minute
• CBM Written Expression Correct word sequences
  given a story starter, 30 seconds to think, and 3
  minutes to write.
• CBM Math Applications 20-22 mixed math
  computation and applied problems in 10 minutes
• Aimsweb

7
Example Aimsweb graph
8
NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAPs)

• Computer-adaptive achievement test that assesses
  math, reading, and language usage using Rasch
  Unit (RIT) scores.
• RIT scores interval scale ranging from about 150
  to around 260 in reading, and around 300 in math.
  Third grade students typically start at a RIT
  score of 170-190 and progress to the 230-260
  range by high school.
• Students scores on the MAPs measure academic
  growth over time, and can be administered in both
  the fall and the spring.
• Web Portal (TIES)

9
School-Wide Systems for Student Success

• Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment-based
• Intense, durable procedures

5-10
5-10
Tier 3
Tier 2
10-15
10-15
Tier 1
10
SCRED RtI Model Academics Positive Behavior
Support
Tier 3 Intensive 5-10
Tier 2 Strategic 15-20
Assessment
Instruction
Tier 1 Universal 75-80
Problem-Solving Organization
11
Steps of Problem-Solving Model
2. Problem Analysis Why is the problem occurring?
1. Problem Identification What is the
discrepancy between what is expected and what is
occurring?
3. Plan Development What is the goal? What is
the intervention plan to address this goal? How
will progress be monitored?
5. Plan Evaluation Is the intervention plan
effective?
4. Plan Implementation How will implementation
integrity be ensured?
12
What is RtI?

• Response to Intervention (RtI)
• The practice of providing high quality
  instruction and interventions matched to student
  need, monitoring progress frequently to make
  changes in instruction, and applying child
  response data to important educational decisions.
• Positive Behavior Interventions Supports
  (PBIS) SCRED schools views this as RtI for
  behavior
• CLHS First year PBIS site (MDE grant)

13
Why RtI at the Secondary Level?

• NCLB
• IDEA 2004
• Increasing accountability and academic standards
  require more options for students needing Tier 2
  3
• Data from PBIS shows
• increase academic instructional time
• increase academic engagement
• increase in academic achievement

14
Specific Challenges for RtI at Secondary Schools

• Larger student enrollment than at elementary
  
• 2) Multiple feeder schools
• 3) Teachers have curriculum specializations.
• Larger numbers of staff
• Decrease in individualized attention for students
  from staff
• 6) Emphasis on knowledge dissemination and
  independent skill application.
• 7) Students are expected to independently
  self-monitor, organize, and be responsible for
  their own learning
• 8) Decrease of parent involvement.

15
CLHS Three Tier RtI Model Examples of programming
16
The RtI Process at CLHS

• Problem-Solving Team and five step model
• Student Assistance Team (Regular Education)
  Problem-Solving Team
• Problem-Solving Team Members Assistant
  Principal, guidance counselors, school
  psychologist, school nurse, police liaison
  officer, truancy prevention, chemical health, and
  mental health.
• Weekly, Monday AM
• 1x month data reviews with small group

17
Data Reviews

• RtI students 2x per term
• Teachers identify students of concern prior to
  meeting
• Graph and problem-solving done as a team
• RtI Teachers, Principal, Asst. Principal, 1 or
  more counselors, School Psychologist
• 1x month for students in Problem-Solving
• CBM graphs
• Check Connect data
• Alternative English and Math Initial data
  collection graph reviews

18
Problem-Solving Process at CLHS

• Student referred to SAT/Problem-Solving Team via
  counselors from teachers, parents, etc.
• Problem Identification data are collected
• Team prioritizes problem decides next step
• Consultation/follow-up with teacher, parent by
  counselor or school psych, or other team member
• Proceed with problem solving Problem Analysis
• Proceed with problem-solving with smaller team
  (e.g., regular education teacher, special
  education teacher, guidance counselor, school
  psychologist, Assistant Principal)
• Proceed with referral for Special Education

19
(No Transcript)
20
Who collects the data?
21
RtI Journey Timeline

• Year 1 (03-04)
• Primary team members trained
• Working knowledge of prob-solv forms process
• Working knowledge of data and using data to make
  decisions
• Year 2 (04-05)
• Continue to build capacity for process
• Improve on intervention integrity
• Expand Tier 2 interventions for individuals
• Standard Treatment Protocol to reach groups of
  students

22
RtI Journey End of 2004-2005Two Challenging
Trends

• Ninth grade students
• Remedial academic skills reading and writing
• Student engagement work completion, passing
  classes, earning credits, attendance, discipline
  referrals
• Intervention delivery on a block schedule
• 15-30 minute intervention 85 minute study hall
  no credit
• Quarter change new study hall time, new
  intervention implementer, etc.
• Student participation was intermittent to poor

23
Critical features of remedial literacy
instruction at the secondary level

• Effective professional development
• Effective instructional tools incl. core
  curriculum and instructional methodology
• System reorganization and support
• Formative and summative assessment
• Building/classroom climate that fosters high
  student engagement
• Committee/Team
• (e.g., Allain, 2008 Alliance for Excellence in
  Education, 2004 Diamond, 2004)

24
Be Prepared to Disrupt the Master Schedule!

• The development of programming to meet the needs
  of struggling will need to be intentionally
  planned and inserted into the master schedule.

25
RtI English classes

• 05-06 RtI English 9
• 06-07 Added 1 semester RtI English 10
• 07-08 Added full year RtI English 10
• Tier 2 intervention
• Daily, one 85 minute block, all year
• Student-centered instructional design, e.g.,
  cooperative learning
• Typical English 9 10 1 block, 1 semester

26
RtI English classes

• Academic interventions in reading and writing
  30-40 minutes per day
• Remedial instruction adapted quarterly based on
  CBM data collected frequently on every student
• Core English 9 10 curriculum taught at modified
  pace and adapted based on student needs

27
RtI English classes

• English Teachers New to CLHS, young,
  enthusiastic, experience with at-risk learners
• Interventions Specialists
• RtI 9 Experienced teacher (Spanish Dept.), very
  enthusiastic for this opportunity, very open to
  learning, great connections with kids
• RtI 10 Experienced paraprofessional, wide
  knowledge base in data collection
  interventions, runs the Check Connect program,
  great connections with kids
• These were already existing positions

28
How students are selected

• Multiple data sources and indicators of student
  engagement
• CBM scores
• MAPs
• State level reading tests
• Attendance and grades
• Current 8th grade class enrollment
• 8th grade problem-solving status
• Eighth grade teacher input and recommendation
• No specific/formal entrance or exit criteria

29
How students are selected

• In spring of 8th grade, teachers began talking
  with students and their families about the
  availability of this class
• Not required
• No students/families have opted out
• About 18 students per year

30
Timeline for decision-making

• February Master schedule adjusted
• March AP and MS admin/staff put together initial
  list of at-risk students and their data
• April Principal, AP, and School Psych review
  student needs and develop the Tier 2 course
  concept what would need to be included to meet
  the needs of the students and building level
  needs
• June Hire new staff (if needed)
• Aug Meet with RtI Eng teachers, discuss class
  concept, data and progress monitoring.
• Fall/Spring RtI teachers receive on-going
  professional development

31
RtI English 9 First quarter

• Three goals
• Build relationships with students
• Establish regular cycle of CBM data collection
  review. Set up graphs.
• Apply problem-solving model for intervention
  decisions what and for whom
• Fall Professional Development

32
RtI Class First quarter

• Whole group academic interventions for reading
  fluency and writing mechanics
• Daily Oral Language (DOL)
• Six Minute Solution (Adams Brown, 2003)
• Peer tutoring, reading fluency building
  intervention.
• Same-level pairs, students engage in repeated
  readings of 1-minute nonfiction passages as their
  partners note the number of words read correctly.

33
RtI English Classes

• End of first quarter Identify additional needs
  at class, small group, and individual level.
• Rest of the year
• On-going data collection and reviews
• Problem-solving for class, small group, and
  individual level

34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Impact on Achievement

• Measures of Academic Progress - Reading
• Computer-Adaptive
• RIT scale allows growth measurement
• Aligned with MN state standards
• Comparison to typical growth
• Based on BOTH grade level and performance level
• Assigns growth target based on national norms
• Controls for regression to the mean
• At group level, 50 meeting growth target would
  be national average

37
Impact on Achievement

• Compared students in RtI English to students in a
  more traditional alternative English class
• Same school
• Placement in RtI vs. Traditional typically based
  on scheduling constraints
• Compiled data across 2 cohorts of 9th graders
• 2005-06 2006-07
• Total of 35 students in RtI English and 38
  students in traditional alternative English class
• Examined percent meeting growth target across
  both groups, for both cohorts

38
(No Transcript)
39
Results

• RtI English had consistently higher percentages
  meeting growth target than traditional
  alternative English classes
• RtI English had consistently higher percentages
  than national average (50)
• Traditional alternative English had consistently
  lower percentages than national average

40
Limitations

• Placement decisions were non-random
• Small sample
• Needs to be replicated across teachers,
  buildings, and districts
• But
• data show promising support for this Secondary
  RtI model

41
Advisement Check-Ins Correctives (Tier 1 and
Tier 2)

• Advisement Activities
• Grade Checks
• Preparing for Corrective
• Corrective

42
Corrective Trends 9th grade

• 7 students requested in both Sept and Oct
  correctives and still failed the class
• 11 students failed a class who werent requested
  for either corrective
• Corrective 1 68.9 of the students requested
  passed their class
• Corrective 2 76.2 of the students requested
  passed their class
• Term 1 corrective avg 72.45 of students
  requested passed their classes

43
RtI at CLHSOther Tier 2 Programming

• Selected regular education teachers assigned to
  tutoring as their supervision duty.
• Two versions Team of three teachers, each taking
  one full block OR individual teacher assigned to
  30 mins each day.
• Blocks 1, 2, 4. Could not work around lunch.
• Tutors are trained in specific intervention
  strategies.
• Any student can access as needed OR
• Students can be assigned for academic
  interventions

44
RtI at CLHSOther Tier 2 programming

• Tutoring or single staff available for
  interventions
• Creation of master schedule for interventions
• Interventionists are responsible for progress
  monitoring
• Student engagement study w/UofM Baseline data
• Check Connect at two levels
• Correctives (Tier 1 2)
• CLHS Check Connect modified Check Connect
  (http//ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/check_
  conn/index.asp) and Behavior Education Program
  (Crone et al., 2004)

45
Some Descriptive Results

• CLHS Failure Rate Term 1
• Number of students with 1 or more Fs
• 2003-2004 182 16.5
• 2004-2005 157 - 14
• 2005-2006 158 14.3
• 2006-2007 126 - 11
• 2007-2008 119 10.1
• In Fall 2007 A 5.5 decrease from Fall 2006

46
More Descriptive Results

• 9th Grade Failure Rate Term 1
• Number of students with 1 or more Fs
• 2003-2004 68 22.7
• 2004-2005 41 13.7
• 2005-2006 45 16.1
• 2006-2007 41 14.1
• 2007-2008 32 9.8
• From Fall 2006 to Fall 2007 A 22 reduction!

47
(No Transcript)
48
A word about roles for Administrators. . .

• Have a plan
• How to fit into the master schedule
• Who is your team?
• What training is needed?
• How and when will that be provided?
• Value and use data to drive decision-making
• Working knowledge of empirically-based
  instruction in basic skill areas and student
  engagement variables
• Open dialogue and problem-solving to take RtI as
  intended and make it building-wide priority.
• Prioritize resource allocation
• Promote building-wide with all staff and not just
  let special education drive the RtI bus.
• Be willing to live and breathe this!

49
A word about roles for School Psychologists. . .

• Advanced knowledge of problem-solving model,
  academic and social/behavior interventions, and
  using data for decision-making.
• On-going support and coaching for regular ed.
  staff on problem-solving team, doing
  interventions, teaching RtI class, etc. to foster
  staff buy-in.
• Willingness to see the big picture of school
  structure and problem solve through systematic
  issues.
• Strong follow up with all aspects of problem
  solving, especially data collection and integrity
  checks.
• Motivating staff to be persistent with
  implementing problem solving and supportive of
  their efforts.

50
A word about choosing teachers . . .

• Choose teachers for Tier 2 who
• Work well with struggling students
• Believe that ALL students can and deserve to
  learn
• Have good organizational skills
• Demonstrate good classroom management skills
• Are open to new content and instructional
  methodology
• Change instruction based on student performance
  data
• Are willing to accept coaching
• Do not stigmatize the intervention by promoting a
  climate of those teachers who teach those
  kids.
• Taken from Allain (2008), p. 67

51
Research v. Practice What weve learned
52
Other things weve learned . . .

• Integrity checks on intervention implementation
  are imperative
• Modeling support for intervention integrity
• Have clearly defined roles of the problem-solving
  team. Prevents overwhelming one person.

53
Other things weve learned . . .

• Math ALEKs - didnt work for us
• Challenges of doing a second intervention, e.g.,
  RtI class
• Have one person on-site who is highly
  knowledgeable/trained for implementing this
  process, e.g., RtI Coach, School Psychologist
• Schedule regular data reviews or it wont happen!

54
Engaging regular education staff

• Start small with some motivated, charismatic
  staff
• Make in-person connections with staff (emails do
  not cut it)
• Remember that typical secondary staff do not have
  training in remedial/basic skill instruction
• Be creative with creating time for their
  involvement, e.g., no bus or hallway duty,
  schedule team meetings during their prep, etc.
• Show them the data!!

55
Next steps Spring 2008 beyond

• Another administration of the SEI
• An enhanced Tier 2 Check Connect
• Building-wide PBIS implementation kickoff
• More regular education staff trained in
  problem-solving
• Continue to develop the tool box for curriculum
  needs
• Increased student involvement

56
A final thought . . .

• We have to teach the children we have
• Not the children we used to have
• Not the children we want to have
• Not the children we dream to have
• - Woodrow Wilson

57
References

• Adams, G., Brown, S. (2003). The Six-Minute
  Solution A Reading Fluency Program. Colorado
  Sopris West.
• Allain, J.K. (2008). The Logistics of Literacy
  Intervention. Colorado Sopris West
• Alliance For Excellence in Education. (2004).
  Reading Next A Vision for Action and Research In
  Middle and High School Literacy. www.all4ed.org.
• Check Connect. Retrieved from the What Works
  Clearinghouse http//ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/
  dropout/check_conn/index.asp
• Crone, D.A., Horner, R.H., Hawken, L.S. (2004).
  Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools The
  Behavior Education Program. New York Guildford.

58

• Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-Based Measurement
  The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children,
  52, 219-232.
• Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-Based Measurement
  and alternative special education services A
  fundamental and direct relationship. In M.R.
  Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-Based Measurement
  Assessing special children (pp.1-17). New York
  Guilford.
• Diamond, L. (2004). Implementing and Sustaining a
  Middle and High School Reading Intervention
  Program. The Consortium on Reading Excellence,
  Inc.
• Edmonson-Bohanon, H., Brigid Flannery, K., Eber,
  L., Sugai, G. (2005). Positive Behavior Support
  in High Schools Monograph from the 2004 Illinois
  High School Forum of Positive Behavioral
  Interventions and Supports. Retrieved on August
  28, 2007 from http//www.pbis.org/highschool.htm.

59

• Mastropieri, M.A. Scruggs, T.E. (2005).
  Feasibility an Consequences of Response to
  Intervention Examination of the Issues and
  Scientific Evidence as a Model for the
  Identification of Individuals with Learning
  Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
  38, 525-532.
• Shinn, M.R. (1998). Advanced applications of
  Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York Guilford.
• Sprick, R.S. (2006). Discipline in the Secondary
  Classroom A Positive Approach to Behavior
  Management. (2nd Ed.). California Jossey-Bass
  Teacher.
• Windram, H., Scierka, B., Silberglitt, B. (2007).
  Response to Intervention at the Secondary Level
  A Description of Two Districts Models of
  Implementation. Communiqué, 35, 43-45.

60
Contact Information

• Dave Ertl, Principal
• dertl_at_chisagolakes.k12.mn.us
• 651-213-2501
• Sara Johnson, Asst. Principal
• smjohnson_at_chisagolakes.k12.mn.us
• 651-213-2503
• Holly Windram, Asst. Spec. Ed. Director
• hwindram_at_scred.k12.mn.us
• 651-213-2008