Problem-Solving/RtI: Implementing an Intervention Data Collection System with Integrity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Problem-Solving/RtI: Implementing an Intervention Data Collection System with Integrity PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 529d13-ZWJhY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Problem-Solving/RtI: Implementing an Intervention Data Collection System with Integrity

Description:

Problem-Solving/RtI: Implementing an Intervention Data Collection System with Integrity NASP Annual Convention New Orleans, LA George M. Batsche – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:545
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 105
Provided by: George551
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Problem-Solving/RtI: Implementing an Intervention Data Collection System with Integrity


1
Problem-Solving/RtI Implementing an
Intervention Data Collection System with Integrity
  • NASP Annual Convention
  • New Orleans, LA
  • George M. Batsche
  • Professor and Co-Director
  • Institute for School Reform
  • Florida Problem-Solving RtI Statewide Project
  • Jose M. Castillo
  • PS/RtI Project Evaluator
  • RtI Coach - Pasco County School District
  • University of South Florida

2
The Vision
  • 95 of students at proficient level
  • Students possess social and emotional behaviors
    that support active learning
  • A unified system of educational services
  • One ED
  • Student Support Services perceived as a necessary
    component for successful schooling

3
Components of the Organizational Delivery System
  • Academic and Behavior Instruction
  • Learning Supports
  • Leadership

4
Response to Intervention
  • RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality
    instruction/intervention matched to student needs
    and (2) using learning rate over time and level
    of performance to (3) make important educational
    decisions.
  • (Batsche, et al., 2005)
  • Problem-solving is the process that is used to
    develop effective instruction/interventions.

5
Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI
  • Consensus
  • Belief is shared
  • Vision is agreed upon
  • Implementation requirements understood
  • Infrastructure Development
  • Problem-Solving Process
  • Data System
  • Policies/Procedures
  • Training
  • Tier I and II intervention systems
  • E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan
  • Technology support
  • Decision-making criteria established
  • Implementation

6
The Process of Systems Change
  • Until, and unless, Consensus (understanding the
    need and trusting in the support) is reached no
    support will exist to establish the
    Infrastructure. Until, and unless, the
    Infrastructure is in place Implementation will
    not take place.
  • A fatal flaw is to attempt Implementation without
    Consensus and Infrastructure
  • Leadership must come both from the Principal and
    from the educators in the building.

7
Consensus Development Methods
  • Knowledge
  • Data

8
Consensus Development Knowledge
  • Rationale for PS/RtI
  • Impact on students
  • Reduces disproportionality
  • Equity in Educaiton
  • Research
  • NASDSE Book
  • Law and Regulations

9
Building Consensus
  • Beliefs
  • Understanding the Need
  • Skills and/or Support

10
Essential Beliefs
  • Student performance is influenced most by the
    quality of the interventions we deliver and how
    well we deliver them- not preconceived notions
    about child characteristics
  • Decisions are best made with data
  • Our expectations for student performance should
    be dependent on a students response to
    intervention, not on the basis of a score that
    predicts what they are capable of doing.

11
How Do We Know If This is a General Education
Initiative?
  • Priority of superintendent and school board
  • District Leadership Team
  • Strategic Plan
  • Focus is on effectiveness of Tier 1 for
    disaggregated groups
  • Unit of Analysis is the BUILDING

12
How Do We Know If This is a General Education
Initiative?
  • Principal Led
  • Regular data analysis
  • Data Days
  • Team focuses in improving impact of core
    instruction
  • Prevention and Early Intervention
  • Screening and early intervention with
    Kindergarten students

13
Contextual Issues Affecting The Problem-Solving
Process in General and Special Education
  • IDEA Re-Authorization
  • Focus on academic outcomes
  • General education as baseline metric
  • Labeling as a last resort
  • Increasing general education options
  • Pooling building-based resources
  • Flexible funding patterns
  • RtI Introduced as option for LD eligibility
  • ESEA Legislation-No Child Left Behind
  • National Emphasis on Reading
  • Evidence-based Interventions

14
Is It All About Reading? Maybe At First!
  • 52 of IDEA go to LD Programs
  • 70 /- of special education activities (e.g.,
    evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases
  • 94 of students in LD because of reading/language
    arts
  • 46 of IDEA go to improve reading
  • Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast majority
    of special education activities

15
Why Problem-Solving ? BIG IDEAS
  • AYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of
    attention to student progress, not student labels
  • Building principals and superintendents want to
    know if students are achieving benchmarks,
    regardless of the students type
  • Accurate placements do not guarantee that
    students will be exposed to interventions that
    maximize their rate of progress
  • Effective interventions result from good
    problem-solving, rather than good testing
  • Progress monitoring is done best with authentic
    assessment that is sensitive to small changes in
    student academic and social behavior

16
Big Ideas (cond)
  • Interventions must be evidence based
    (IDEA/NCLB)
  • Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure
    of problem severity
  • Program eligibility (initial and continued)
    decisions are best made based on RtI
  • Staff training and support (e.g., coaching)
    improve intervention skills
  • Tiered implementation improves service
    efficiency

17
New Regulations LD
  • The child does not achieve adequately for the
  • childs age or to meet State-approved grade-level
    standards
  • in one or more of the following areas, when
    provided with
  • learning experiences and instruction appropriate
    for the
  • childs age or State-approved gradelevel
    standards
  • The child does not make sufficient progress to
  • meet age or State-approved grade-level standards
    in one or
  • more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1)
    of this
  • section when using a process based on the childs
    response
  • to scientific, research-based intervention

18
New Regulations LD
  • Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part
    of, the referral process, the child was provided
    appropriate instruction in regular education
    settings, delivered by qualified personnel and
  • (2) Data-based documentation of repeated
    assessments of achievement at reasonable
    intervals, reflecting formal assessment of
    student progress during instruction, which was
    provided to the childs parents.

19
New Regulations LD
  • If the child has participated in a process that
  • assesses the childs response to scientific,
    research-based
  • intervention-
  • (i) The instructional strategies used and the
  • student-centered data collected and
  • (ii) The documentation that the childs parents
    were
  • notified about--
  • (A) The States policies regarding the amount and
  • nature of student performance data that would be
    collected
  • and the general education services that would be
    provided
  • (B) Strategies for increasing the childs rate of
    Learning AND the relationship between student
    behavior and academic performance.

20
What Does the USDOE Say?
  • The Department does not believe that an
    assessment of psychological or cognitive
    processing should be required in determining
    whether a child has an SLD. There is no current
    evidence that such assessments are necessary or
    sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many
    cases, these assessments have not been used to
    make appropriate intervention decisions. (IDEIA,
    2004, p. 46651)

21
Criteria for Special Education Eligibility
  • Significant gap exists between student and
    benchmark/peer performance
  • The Response to Intervention is insufficient to
    predict attaining benchmark
  • Student is not a functionally independent learner
  • Complete comprehensive evaluation

22
Implications
  • Tier 1 Decision Making
  • Ensure that the core curriculum is effective
  • What does effective mean?
  • 80 of students achieving benchmarks
  • Disaggregated data
  • Race, SES, LEP
  • Who determines effective?
  • Principal, Teacher, Data Person

23
Implications
  • Poor/lack of instruction must be ruled out
  • Curricular access blocked by any of the following
    must be addressed
  • Attendance
  • Health
  • Mobility
  • Sufficient exposure to and focus on the
    curriculum must occur
  • Frequent, repeated assessment must be conducted

24
Consensus Development Data
  • Are you happy with your data?
  • Building/Grade Level Student Outcomes
  • Disaggregated
  • AYP

25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
Infrastructure Critical Issues
  • Policies and Procedures
  • The Model
  • Steps in the Model
  • Decision Rules
  • Decision Rules and Impact on Intervention
    Development
  • Expectation for Tier Functions/Integration
  • Data Collection and Interpretation
  • Intervention Development
  • Intervention Integrity and Documentation

31
Infrastructure Policies and Procedures
  • Clearly delineate the components of the model
  • Triangle
  • 4-Step Model
  • Identify steps/skills required for each component
  • Decision Rules

32
Problem Solving Process
33
Steps in the Problem-Solving Process
  • PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
  • Identify replacement behavior
  • Data- current level of performance
  • Data- benchmark level(s)
  • Data- peer performance
  • Data- GAP analysis
  • PROBLEM ANALYSIS
  • Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)
  • Develop predictions/assessment
  • INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT
  • Develop interventions in those areas for
    which data are available and hypotheses
    verified
  • Proximal/Distal
  • Implementation support
  • Response to Intervention (RtI)
  • Frequently collected data
  • Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

34
Problem-Solving/RtI Resource Management
Academic
Behavior
  • Public Education Resource Deployment
  • Support staff cannot resource more than 20 of
    the students
  • Service vs Effectiveness--BIG ISSUE

35
Intervention Framework
Academic
Behavior
  • Intensive Interventions
  • A few
  • Supplemental Interventions
  • Some
  • Core/Universal Interventions
  • All

36
How Does it Fit Together? Standard Treatment
Protocol
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 1
37
Tier Functions/Integration
  • How the Tiers work
  • Time aggregation
  • Tier integration

38
How the Tiers Work
  • Goal Student is successful with Tier 1 level of
    support-academic or behavioral
  • Greater the tier, greater support and severity
  • Increase level of support (Tier level) until you
    identify an intervention that results in a
    positive response to intervention
  • Continue until student strengthens response
    significantly
  • Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level)
  • Determine the relationship between sustained
    growth and sustained support.

39
Integrating the Tiers
  • Tier 1 (Core) instruction present at all three
    levels
  • Purpose of Tier 2 is to improve success in Tier 1
  • Purpose of Tier 3 is to improve success in Tier 2
  • Is there a single intervention plan made up of
    different Tier services?

40
Integrating the Tiers
  • 5th grade student reading at the 2nd grade level
  • Tier 3
  • Direct Instruction, Targeted, Narrow Focus (e.g.,
    phonemic awareness, phonics, some fluency)
  • Tier 2
  • Fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, pre-teach for
    Tier 1
  • Tier 1
  • Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted
    decoding
  • Use core materials for content
  • Progress monitor both instructional level and
    grade placement level skills

41
Cascade of Interventions
  • Entire staff understands triangle and the
    available interventions at each Tier.
  • Supplemental and intensive interventions are in
    addition to core instruction.
  • A student intervention plan is a single document
    that is integrated across the tiers.
  • Different tiers ensure that outcomes in Tier 1
    are improved
  • Tier 1 progress monitoring data are used for
    effectiveness determination for all Tiers

42
(No Transcript)
43
Decision Rules
  • Response to Intervention Rules
  • Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

44
Decision Rules What is a Good Response to
Intervention?
  • Positive Response
  • Gap is closing
  • Can extrapolate point at which target student
    will come in range of peers--even if this is
    long range
  • Questionable Response
  • Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably,
    but gap is still widening
  • Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
  • Poor Response
  • Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

45
Decision Rules Linking RtI to Intervention
Decisions
  • Positive, Questionable, Poor Response
  • Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General
    Guidelines)
  • Positive
  • Continue intervention until student reaches
    benchmark (at least).
  • Fade intervention to determine if student has
    acquired functional independence.
  • Questionable
  • Increase intensity of current intervention for a
    short period of time and assess impact. If rate
    improves, continue. If rate does not improve,
    return to problem solving.
  • Poor
  • Return to problem solving for new intervention

46
Data Collection and Interpretation Issues and
Models
  • Where to data come from
  • Which data are used across tiers
  • High school applications
  • Data analysis and display

47
Data Coach
  • Gathers and Organizes Tier 1 and Tier 2 Data
  • Supports staff for small group and individual
    data
  • Provides coaching for data interpretation
  • Facilitates regular data meetings for building
    and grade levels

48
Skills Required
  • Collaborative problem solving
  • Interpersonal
  • Problem solving process
  • Data-based decision making
  • Collection
  • Management
  • Display analysis
  • Interpretation
  • Action planning
  • Assessment intervention
  • Support

49
Skill Assessment Examples
  • Measure skills
  • Problem-solving process
  • Data-based decision making
  • Examples
  • Problem ID - Tier I focus
  • Hypothesis evaluation
  • Hypothesis production validation

50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
Data For Each Tier - Where Do They Come From?
  • Tier 1 Universal Screening, accountability
    assessments, grades, classroom assessments,
    referral patterns, discipline referrals, common
    assessments
  • Tier 2 Universal Screening - Group Level
    Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress
    monitoring, large-scale assessment data and
    classroom assessment, common assessments
  • Tier 3 Universal Screenings, Individual
    Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress
    monitoring, formative assessment, other informal
    assessments

55
High School Data
  • Skill or Content Assessment
  • Skill
  • Use existing reading/math skill assessments
  • Content
  • Use Common Assessments

56
Common Assessments
  • Based on State-Approved, Content Area Standards
  • Syllabus expected to reflect those standards
  • Common assessment given every 3rd week
  • Data aggregated and disaggregated

57
Common Assessments Interpretation
  • Mean level of performance of all students
  • Disaggregated by section
  • Disaggregated by demographics
  • Are 80 of students attaining 70 accuracy? If
    not, implications for core instruction--Problem
    Solving
  • Is syllabus implementation on track?
  • Compare individual student performance to group
    data.

58
Intervention Development
  • Tiers 1 and 2
  • Critical Components
  • Evidence-based

59
Data Infrastructure Using Existing Data to
Predict Intervention Needs
  • Previous referral history predicts future
    referral history
  • How do we interpret teacher referrals?
  • Previous intervention history predicts future
    intervention history
  • How do we use this information to establish an
    infrastructure for change?

60
Data-Driven Infrastructure Establishing a
Building Baseline
  • Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years
  • Identifies problems teachers feel they do not
    have the skills/support to handle
  • Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the
    staff, the resources currently in place and the
    history of what constitutes a referral in that
    building
  • Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years
  • Identifies focus of Professional Development
    Activities AND potential Tier II and III
    interventions
  • Present data to staff. Reinforces Need concept

61
Data-Driven Infrastructure Establishing a
Building Baseline
  • Assess current Supplemental Interventions
  • Identify all students receiving supplemental
    interventions
  • For those interventions, identify
  • Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction,
    etc)
  • Duration (minutes/week)
  • Provider
  • Aggregate
  • Identifies instructional support types in
    building
  • This constitutes Tier II and III intervention
    needs

62
Implications for High Schools
  • Focus is on BOTH skill and content.
  • Primary problems
  • Students who cannot read well enough to get the
    content.
  • Students who do not have the skills to study and
    maintain content OR do not have sufficient time
    and organizational skills.
  • High school difficulties should be identified and
    predicted in middle school.
  • High school interventions should be a
    continuation of middle school interventions--not
    separate.

63
Data Cannot Be a Barrier
  • Data should be
  • Collected efficiently
  • Easy to manage
  • Displayed graphically
  • Easily interpretable

64
Benchmark Data Made Easy
65
(No Transcript)
66
OPM Made Easy
67
(No Transcript)
68
H
69
H
70
www.swis.org
71
www.swis.org
72
Intervention Development
  • Criteria for Appropriate and Effective
    Interventions
  • Evidence-based
  • Type of Problem
  • Population
  • Setting
  • Levels of Support
  • Focused on most important needs
  • Group interventions have priority
  • Interventions MUST be linked to Tier 1 focus,
    materials, performance criteria

73
Interventions Tier 2
  • First resource is TIME (AET)
  • HOW much more time is needed?
  • Second resource is curriculum
  • WHAT does the student need?
  • Third resource is personnel
  • WHO or WHERE will it be provided?

74
Tier 2 Getting TIME
  • Free time--does not require additional
    personnel
  • Staggering instruction
  • Differentiating instruction
  • Cross grade instruction
  • Skill-based instruction
  • Standard Protocol Grouping
  • Reduced range of standard curriculum
  • After-School
  • Home-Based

75
Tier 2 Curriculum
  • Standard protocol approach
  • Focus on essential skills
  • Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of core
    instruction
  • Linked directly to core instruction materials and
    benchmarks
  • Criterion for effectiveness is 70 of students
    receiving Tier 2 will reach benchmarks

76
Tier 2 Personnel
  • EVERYONE in the building is a potential resource
  • Re-conceptualize who does what
  • Personnel deployed AFTER needs are identified
  • WHERE matters less and less
  • REMEMBER, student performance matters more than
    labels, locations and staff needs.
  • A school cannot deliver intensive services to
    more than 7 of the population

77
Evidence-Based
  • Nationally Evidenced
  • Select to increase probability of success
  • Locally Validated
  • Local outcome data used to evaluate degree to
    which interventions worked
  • Local outcome data trumps national evidence.

78
Intervention Support and Documentation
  • Intervention Integrity
  • Intervention Support
  • Intervention Documentation

79
Intervention Integrity
  • Enhanced through two practices
  • Intervention Support System
  • Intervention lmplementation Documentation

80
Intervention Support
  • Intervention plans should be developed based on
    student need and skills of staff
  • All intervention plans should have intervention
    support
  • Principals should ensure that intervention plans
    have intervention support
  • Teachers should not be expected to implement
    plans for which there is no support

81
Critical Components of Intervention Support
  • Support for Intervention Integrity
  • Documentation of Intervention Implementation
  • Intervention and Eligibility decisions and
    outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model
    without these two critical components

82
Intervention Support
  • Pre-meeting
  • Review data
  • Review steps to intervention
  • Determine logistics
  • First 2 weeks
  • 2-3 meetings/week
  • Review data
  • Review steps to intervention
  • Revise, if necessary

83
Intervention Support
  • Second Two Weeks
  • Meet twice each week
  • Following weeks
  • Meet at least weekly
  • Review data
  • Review steps
  • Discuss Revisions
  • Approaching benchmark
  • Review data
  • Schedule for intervention fading
  • Review data

84
(No Transcript)
85
Program Evaluation
86
Evaluation of PS/RtI Implementation Should
  • Respect the complexity of schools as social
    systems
  • Be organized and systematic
  • Be used to inform implementers
  • Formative data collection necessary
  • Include multiple methods and informants

87
FL PS/RtI Evaluation Model
  • IPO model used
  • Variables included
  • Levels
  • Inputs
  • Processes
  • Outcomes
  • Contextual factors
  • External factors
  • Goals objectives

88

89
Levels
  • Students
  • Receiving Tiers I, II, III
  • Educators
  • Teachers
  • Administrators
  • Coaches
  • Student and instructional support personnel
  • System
  • District
  • Building
  • Grade levels
  • Classrooms

90
Inputs (What We Dont Control)
  • Students
  • Demographics
  • Previous learning experiences achievement
  • Educators
  • Roles
  • Experience
  • Previous PS/RtI training
  • Previous beliefs about services
  • System
  • Previous consensus regarding PS/RtI
  • Previous PS/RtI infrastructure
  • Assessments
  • Interventions
  • Procedures
  • Technology

91
Processes (What We Do)
  • Students
  • Assessment participation (e.g., DIBELS screening)
  • Instruction/intervention participation
  • Educators
  • Frequency and duration of participation in PS/RtI
    Project training
  • Content of Project training in which they
    participated
  • System
  • Frequency duration of professional development
    offered by the Project
  • Content of professional development offered
  • Stakeholders participating in professional
    development activities
  • Communication between Project and
    districts/buildings

92
Implementation Integrity Checklists
  • Implementation integrity measures developed
  • Measure
  • Steps of problem solving
  • Focus on Tiers I, II, III
  • Data come from
  • Permanent products (e.g., meeting notes, reports)
  • Problem Solving Team meetings

93
Outcomes (What We Hope to Impact)
  • Educators
  • Consensus regarding PS/RtI
  • Beliefs
  • Satisfaction
  • PS/RtI Skills
  • PS/RtI Practices

94
(No Transcript)
95
(No Transcript)
96
Outcomes cont.
  • System
  • PS/RtI Infrastructure
  • Assessments
  • Interventions
  • Procedures
  • Technology
  • Costs
  • PS/RtI Implementation

97
(No Transcript)
98
(No Transcript)
99
(No Transcript)
100
Outcomes cont.
  • Students
  • Academic achievement
  • Behavioral outcomes
  • Systemic
  • Discipline referrals
  • Referrals for problem solving
  • Referrals for SPED evaluations
  • SPED placements

101
Reading Instruction - Tier I Grade Level
102
Systemic Outcomes - Office Discipline Referrals
103
Other Variables to Keep in Mind
  • Contextual factors
  • Leadership
  • School climate
  • Stakeholder buy-in
  • External factors
  • Legislation
  • Regulations
  • Policy

104
School Goals Objectives
  • Content Area Targets
  • Reading
  • Math
  • Behavior
  • Majority focusing on reading
  • Some selected math and/or behavior as well
  • Grade levels targeted varied
  • Some chose K or K-1
  • Some chose K-5
About PowerShow.com