Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention

1
Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention

• A module for pre-service and in-service
  professional development
• MN RTI Center
• Module author Amy Reschly, PhD
• www.scred.k12.mn.us click on RTI Center

2
MN RTI Center Training Modules

• This module was developed with funding from the
  MN legislature
• It is part of a series of modules available from
  the MN RTI Center for use in preservice and
  inservice training

2
3
Overview

• Background
• Systems theory student learning in context
• Response to Intervention
• Current trends in the family engagement
  literature
• RTI-Family Engagement Model

4
Background Questions

• Who is responsible for student learning?
• What does No Child Left Behind imply about
  responsibility?
• When a student isnt doing well at school, to
  what do we attribute this?
• Differences in how families and schools would
  answer this question?
• What supports student learning at home? At
  school?
• Are there differences in how families and schools
  would answer this question?

5
Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner
6
Three-Legged Stool Students, Families, and
Schools
7
Ecological Systems Theory Families and Schools

• Many studies and policies (re. families and
  schools) were developed without a theoretical
  framework
• Needed to advance research and guide practice
  
• Jordan et al., 2001
• Systems Theory
• Provides the theoretical foundation for working
  across families and schools to promote student
  success
• Focus on understanding child development
  (learning and behavior) in context
• Reciprocal interactions and relationships among
  these contexts (families and schools)
  over time

Reschly Christenson, 2009
8
Learning Context

• An interwoven structure of circumstances and
  people that surround the child across systems at
  a given point in time and over time.
• Consider the affordance value of this
  contextor how the learning context facilitates
  or impedes child adaptation to challenges and
  demands of schooling.
• Question should be
• How does the social context support or thwart the
  development of student competence (behavior,
  academics, socially) for students across settings
  and time?

Christenson Anderson, 2002
9
(No Transcript)
10
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

11
Implications (Contd)

• Risk is not located within student, home, or
  school systems, but 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

12
Assessment Intervention Questions

• What are typical assessment practices?
• Where are interventions implemented?
• What does our understanding of ecological systems
  theory mean for assessment? What about
  intervention?

13
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

Reschly, Chaffin, Christenson, Gutkin, 2007
14
Promise of RTI

• May address many of these criticisms
• Focus on all students
• Contexts essential to success implications for
  assessment and intervention
• Families are necessary, not optional
• Changes inherent in RTI creating 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

Reschly et al., 2007
15
Working with Families

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

16
Out of School Time

• From birth to the age of 18, students spend more
  than 90 of their time outside of schools.
• Walberg
• 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

17
Families

• 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

18
Mesosystem Families Schools

• 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 (p. 7)
• There has been a gradual deconstruction of the
  notion that families and schools have separate
  responsibilities for student learning.
• Reschly Christenson, 2009

19
Mesosystem Congruence

• The processes and characteristics that enhance
  academic achievement are essentially the same -
  whether found in the home or in the school
• Chall
• Home predictors of school learningwork habits of
  the home, academic guidance and support,
  stimulation to explore and discuss ideas and
  events, language environment, and academic
  aspirations and expectationsare comparable to
  school factors that enhance achievement
• Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, Bloom, 1993

20
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.
• (Contd on next slide)

Christenson Peterson, 2006
Ysseldyke Christenson, 2002
21
Common Factors Across Home-School-Community
Related to Student Competence (Contd)

• 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.

Christenson Peterson, 2006 Ysseldyke
Christenson, 2002
22
Family Involvement
A Universally Endorsed Ideal

• Initiatives, position statements from national
  organizations (e.g., PTA, NASP), and legislation
  (e.g., NCLB, IDEA) related to family involvement
• 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

22
23
Status of Family Engagement Field
Reschly, 2008a Reschly Christenson, 2009
24
Families, Schools and RTIEvidence-Based
Interventions

• NCLB, IDEA, Task Forces within APA Divisions
• What works, for whom, and under what conditions?
• Various recent literature reviews and
  meta-analyses examining family and family-school
  interventions
• E.g., Division 16 Task Force (Carlson
  Christenson, 2005) Nye, Turner, Schwartz,
  2007 Henderson Mapp, 2002.

25
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

26
Meta-Analysis Example Nye et al., 2007

• Effects of parent involvement programs on
  academic performance of elementary students
• Overall positive, significant effects
• Most studies in area of reading stable,
  moderate effect sizes
• Significant moderate effect sizes in math, more
  variable
• Moderator analyses
• Large effects for intervention programs in which
  parents provided some reward or incentive for
  student performance, followed by those with
  parent education/training components

27
Caveats

• Much more research needed
• Directions and issues outlined in Carlson
  Christenson, 2005 Epstein Sheldon, 2006
  Ginsburg-Block, Manz, McWayne, in press Jordan
  et al., 2001 Sheridan, 2005, among others.
• Effective practices vary across sites
• Depending on the unique needs of families,
  students, and schools and the resources available
  to families, schools, and communities
• Particular programs or strategies may have
  different effects at different ages
• Jordan et al., 2001

Reschly, 2008a Reschly Christenson, 2009
28
Family-School Co-Roles Partnerships in RTI
Reschly (2008b), RTI Action Network
29
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

30
References (Contd)

• 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.
• 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.

31
References (Contd)

• 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

32
References (Contd)

• 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.

33
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

34
Quiz

• 1.) Systems theory does what?
• A.) Provides a theoretical foundation for working
  across families and schools
• B.) Focuses on understanding child development
• C.) Studies learning and behavior in context
• D.) Looks at reciprocal interactions and
  relationships among families and schools over
  time
• E.) All of the above

35
Quiz (Contd)

• 2.) A promise of Response to Intervention is that
  families are ________not _________.
• 3.) Name three out of the six common factors
  across home-school-community related to student
  competence.

36
Quiz (Contd)

• 4.) Caveats of RTI True or False
• 1- Much more research is needed
• 2- Effective practices do not vary by site
• 3- Particular programs/strategies may have the
  same effects at different ages

37
The End ?

• Note The MN RTI Center does not endorse any
  particular product. Examples used are for
  instructional purposes only.
• Special Thanks
• Thank you to Dr. Ann Casey, director of the MN
  RTI Center, for her leadership
• Thank you to Aimee Hochstein, Kristen Bouwman,
  and Nathan Rowe, Minnesota State University
  Moorhead graduate students, for editing work,
  writing quizzes, and enhancing the quality of
  these training materials