Successful Implementation of RtI at the Secondary Level: Strategies and Solutions

Learned

Presented by

Sara Johnson, Assistant PrincipalDave Ertl, Principal

Chisago Lakes High SchoolHolly Windram, Asst. Special Education Director

SCREDMarch 26, 2009

Introductions

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Get ready for the journey

5-10% 5-10%

10-15% 10-15%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration

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

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

75-85% 75-85%Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

A Three-Tier ModelSchool-Wide Systems for Student Success

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Academic SystemsRtI

Behavior SystemsPBIS

SCRED RtI Model: Academics and Social/Emotional/Behavior

Ass

essm

en

t

Instru

ctio

n

Problem-Solving & Organization

Tier 1: All

Tier 2: Few

Tier 3: Some

Why RtI at the Secondary Level?

“Shouldn’t all the Special Ed kids be identified already?”“I’m here to teach the kids who show up to learn.”“I have to get through my content and you want me to teach

[insert 1 million other things here]”“Won’t I have to do more work?”“How is this relevant to me - today - right now?”“It’s just another initiative.”“When is lunch?”“Is this workshop over yet?”

Why RtI at the Secondary Level

• NCLB

• IDEA 2004

• Prevention

We need more options

Traditional Model

Special Education

General Education

Sea of kids in the “gray” area

Severity of Educational Need or Problem

Am

oun

t of

Res

ourc

es N

eed

ed T

o B

enef

it

Special Education

General Education

General Education with Support

New System of Problem Solving

Severity of Educational Need or Problem

Am

oun

t of

Res

ourc

es N

eed

ed T

o B

enef

it

Bridging the GapCore + IntensiveCore + Intensive

CoreCore

Weekly-MonthlyWeekly-Monthly

Core + SupplementalCore + Supplemental

3x/year 3x/year

WeeklyWeekly

Am

ou

nt

of

Res

ou

rces

Nee

ded

To

B

enef

it

Severity of Educational Need or Problem

Ready?

Pop Quiz

Windram & Johnson, 2008

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

Windram & Johnson, 2008

02-03 School Year:Catalyst for Change

• Incoming 9th graders.• Top concerns: academic skills, social

interactions, and work completion issues

Sound familiar?

Ninth grade

“If you want to reshape high school, start by changing ninth grade.”

“. . . success or failure in ninth grade is a pivotal indicator of whether or not a student drops out.”

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Timeline

Year 1 (03-04): Problem-Solving Team and Process

Year 2 (04-05): Intervention Integrity and STP Intervention development

Year 3 (05-06): RtI English 9 classYear 4 (06-07): RtI English 10, CLHS “Check

& Connect”Year 5 (07-08): See table

Windram & Johnson, 2008

CLHS Three Tier RtI Model: ExamplesLevel Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s)

TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs ODRs MTS

TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs ODRs

TIER 2 Advisement Correctives (2x term) (STP) RtI 9 English class (STP) RtI 10 English class (STP) English 9 skinny classes (STP) Pre-Algebra (STP) Problem solving interventions CLHS “Check & Connect” (STP)

Grades/Credits CBM Reading & Writing CBM Reading & Writing Grades CBM Math Applications CBMs, Grades/Credits, MAPs Grades/Credits, “mini” SEI

TIER I Advisement Grade Checks (2x term) 9th grade common expectations (planners) 9th grade Link Crew NCA Goal instruction

Grades/Credits Grades/Credits Grades/Credits SEI MAZE

Timeline for decision-making

Start with

DATA

Windram & Johnson, 2008

CLHS: Problem Solving

• 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: AP,

Counselors, School Psych., truancy, RtI Coach

SCRED Problem-Solving Model

1. Problem Identification

What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?

2. Problem Analysis

Why is the problem occurring?

3. Plan Development

What is the goal?What is the intervention plan to address this goal?

How will progress be monitored?

4. PlanImplementation

How will implementation integrity be ensured?

5. Plan Evaluation

Is the intervention plan effective?

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Problem-Solving Process at CLHSStep 1: Student referred to SAT/Problem-Solving

Team via counselors from teachers, parents, etc. Step 2: Problem Identification data are collectedStep 3: Team prioritizes problem & decides next step:

• Level 1: Grade Level Team or Consultation/follow-up• Level 2: Support Staff Consultation • Level 3: Refer for STP• Level 4: Extended Problem-Solving Team referral• Refer to SST for consideration of SE evaluation

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Who collects the data?

Attendance/grades/credits Counselors Educational History Counselors/School Psych Health review Counselors/School Nurse Observation School Psych/Paraprofessional Interviews: Parent, teacher(s), student Counselors, School Psych TIES Web Portal: CBM benchmarks (rdg, wtg, math) 3x year, K-8 NWEA MAPs (rdg, math) 2x year, Fall & Spring MCAIIs/GRAD

Counselors/School Psych/AP

Current CBM Paraprofessional

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Data Reviews

• RtI students and Alt English and Math: 2x per term• Teachers identify students of concern prior to meeting• Graph review 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

Windram & Johnson, 2008

RtI English classes

• Daily, one 85 minute block, all year• DOUBLE the instructional time!!!!• Typical English 9 & 10: 1 block, 1 semester

• Reading & writing interventions 30-40 min. daily• Core English 9 & 10 curriculum taught

• Modified pace • Adapted based on students’ needs

• CBM Reading & Writing data collected on every student• Data reviews 2x per quarter

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)

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Who are the teachers• English Teachers: Enthusiastic, experience

with “at-risk” learners• Intervention Specialists• These were already existing positions

Windram & Johnson, 2008

How Students Are Selected RtI Eng 9

• Spring of 8th grade, teachers introduce class to students and families

• Not required• About 18-24 students per year

Windram & Johnson, 2008

How students are selectedMultiple 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

Windram & Johnson, 2008

RtI English 9: First quarter

• Three goals:1. Build relationships with students2. Establish regular cycle of CBM data

collection & review. Set up graphs.3. Apply problem-solving model for

intervention decisions: what and for whom• Professional Development

Windram & Johnson, 2008

First quarter supplemental instruction

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.

Windram & Johnson, 2008

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

• Adapt supplemental instruction for basic reading and writing skills based on student need

PLC Goal: RtI Eng 9• Increase class average ORF through a motivation

intervention (i.e. one on one graph reviews).• October 2009: Average was 125.35 wrc• By June 2009: Average of 140.35 wrc• February 2009: Average was 142.23 wrc

Avg growth was 1.13 wrc per week** 15 words in 17 weeks. Winter break weeks not included.

SCRED Target Scores

CBM ORF: 170 words read correct

CBM Correct Word Sequences: 64

MAP R RIT: 226

MAP M RIT: 235 – Algebra I

RtI Eng 9 ORF WRC Avg Growth

2

11

3

11

3

7

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08

Number of students

Series1

RtI Eng 9 CWS Average Growth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08

Number of students

Series1

RtI Eng 9 Achieved MAP R Benchmark

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08

Number of Students

Series1

RtI Eng 9 MAP R RIT Growth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th

Cohort and Grade

Amount of RIT Growth

Series1

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

What happened here?

Special Education: SLD

SCRED districts use a SRBI process for SLD eligibility.

CLHS:

05-06: 1 student

06-07: 1 student

07-08: 0 students

Percent of Students making adequate growth on MAP: Grade 9 English programs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms

RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms

2005-06 2006-07

Percent of Students

Case Study: Jimmy

Case Study: Jimmy - 7th Grade Level

Case Study: Jimmy - 8th Grade Level

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Other Tier 2 Programming• Interventions with certified staff• Master schedule for interventions• Resource Room support staff progress monitoring• CLHS “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;

Christianson, et al.) and Behavior Education Program (Crone et al.,

2004)

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Program Failure Rates

28% 29%

12%

35%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1 2 3 4

Terms

Percentage of Classes Failed

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Program Referral Rates

17

21

13

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4

Terms

Number of Referrals

Windram & Johnson, 2008

What is the influence on schoolwide outcomes

????

Windram & Johnson, 2008

16.5

14 14.3

11

10.1

22.7

13.7

16.1

14.1

9.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

School Year

Percent

% Failure Rate Term 1 ALL

% Failure Rate Term 1 9th Grade

Windram & Johnson, 2008

CLHS School-wide MAZE data

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006

# correct on MAZE

12

11

10

9

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Chisago Lakes Middle School• 816 students• 10% special education• 15% free/reduced lunch• 1% English Language Learning• Seven period day• Daily homeroom - CORE Connect

Windram & Johnson, 2008

CLMS Three Tier RtI Model: Examples

Level Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s) TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs

TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs

ODRs TIER 2 RtI Communications (gr. 6-8) (STP)

RtI Math (gr. 6-8) (STP) CLMS “Check & Connect” (STP)

CBM Reading & Writing CBM Math Applications Grades/Credits, DPRs

TIER I CORE Connect Wall of Fame Good Cat Caught in the Act Wildcat Eye on Success Golden Plunger

Grades/ODRs Grades/Credits SEI

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

3 . 5 0 %

8 . 3 0 %

8 8 . 2 0 %

Rush City High School

Math Lab

1 certified teacher and 1 paraprofessional

28 students (8-11 grade)

-9th grade, did not meet MAP Goal of 235 (needed for Algebra)

- Did not pass BSTs

Scierka 2008

Growth on MAP

20 20 20

16

1413

1211

109

8 8 8

65

3

1 1

-2

11

21

11

21

7

11

7

0 0

12

4

6 6

-1

-7

10

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Alcock, BrandiFletcher, ThorenGilliland, MeganStenger, Matthew

Carlson, TylerBaldwin, Chase

Behrendt, Rhiannon

Orr, Dina

Turner, EthanScheffer, JordanMorrow, Kaylynn

Skogman, Samantha

Hughes, KevinScheffer, JennaNowak, TuckerJohnson, Andrew

Poorker, JustinRewey, Andrew

Fleming, Kassaundra

Number of RIT points

Growth from Fall to Win Growth from Fall to Spring

0 means no change from fall to springno red bar, no 0 means no spring test data

Scierka 2008

Student performance compared with estimated MCA-II GRAD

223

214

202

211

223

227

216

226

244

236233

218

233

237

225

230227

234

221223

227

217

221

205

216

210

243

234

222

227

237240

228

237

254

245

228231

225 226

208

253

236

254

226

242239

241244

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Alcock, BrandiFletcher, ThorenGilliland, Megan

Stenger, Matthew

Carlson, TylerBaldwin, Chase

Behrendt, Rhiannon

Orr, Dina

Turner, EthanScheffer, JordanMorrow, Kaylynn

Skogman, Samantha

Hughes, KevinScheffer, JennaNowak, TuckerJohnson, Andrew

Poorker, JustinRewey, Andrew

Fleming, Kassaundra

Becker, AndreaBoecker, JustinHiggins, Christian

Johnson, Olivia

Kuykendall, ThomasMuehlberg, ShannaPaulsen, Thomas

Stone, PhoebeWilliams, Tra'von

RIT score

Estimated that students need RIT score between 243 and 260 to pass GRAD

Windram & Johnson, 2008

So you want to implement RtI at the Secondary Level?

Let kids tell you what to do and how to do it

Start with school-wide literacy

and/or positive behavior support

Start small

More time!

5-8 years for secondary settings

(

Be Prepared to Disrupt the Master Schedule!

Student Involvement and Relationships

Do you have data?

• Screening• Formative

• Summative• Reliable & Valid

Schedule data reviews

What is your decision-making process?

Problem-Solving Process

Is everyone trained?

When do comprehension and vocabulary instruction happen?

“ . . . reading comprehension depends on knowledge and vocabulary. It’s an organic and cumulative process.”

Teaching content?

SIM strategies

Strategic Instruction Model

http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/

Routines to help bring order and

priority to the content

A word about roles for . . .

School PsychologistsLeadership for implementing

RtI framework

A word about roles for . . .

TeachersBelieve we teach ALL kids

A word about roles for . . .

Administrators Leadership in instruction and change

Administrator is a leader for change

Do it. Do with baby steps or not, but do it.

“If, as a school leader, you wait to improve [insert whatever you want here] until you have total buy-in from the school community, then your school will be the last to change.”

How not to do it“Train & Hope”

REACT toProblemBehavior

REACT toProblemBehavior

Select &ADD

Practice

Select &ADD

Practice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

WAIT forNew

Problem

WAIT forNew

Problem

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Staff Buy-In• Start with a few motivated, charismatic staff• Make in-person connections (emails do not cut it)• Give educators tools for remedial/basic skill instruction for academics

and PBS• Create time for their involvement, e.g., no bus or hallway duty, schedule

team meetings during prep, etc.• For every 1 new task/initiative added, take 2 away.

and above all . . .

Show them the

Windram & Johnson, 2008

RtI implementation integrity is essential

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Schedule data reviews

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Have a process for decision-making

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Have a building level RtI “expert”

Windram & Johnson, 2008

Clearly defined roles of Problem-Solving Team members

Contact Information

Holly Windram, Asst. Spec. Ed. Director, SCREDhwindram@scred.k12.mn.us651-213-2008Dave Ertl, Principal, CLHSdertl@chisagolakes.k12.mn.us651-213-2501 Sara Johnson, Asst. Principal, CLHSsmjohnson@chisagolakes.k12.mn.us651-213-2503