DEVELOPING STATE, DISTRICT OR SCHOOL-LEVEL RTI COLLABORATIONS FOR ACADEMICS AND BEHAVIOR

Heather Peshak George, Ph.D.

Brian Gaunt, Ph.D.

Objectives

• Understand the complexity of integrating academic and behavioral systems

• Articulate the need for efficient problem-solving and resource allocation across state, district and building levels

• Become familiar with the organizational foundations and core components to an integrated multi-tiered system of supports

• Understand various practices and strategies available for efficient and effective scale-up of RtI

MTSS: Integrating Two Evidence-Based Models to Improve the Academic and Behavior Outcomes for

ALL Students

• Challenging Times In Which to Educate America’s Children and Youth– Performance Evaluations Tied to Student

Growth– Economic Crises– Alternatives to Public K-12 Education– AYP Projections and Expectations– Recruitment and Retention of Qualified

Professionals– Common Language/Common Understanding

with Educators, Parents and the Community

Current Initiatives

• Differentiated Accountability (DA)• District Improvement and Assessment Plan

(DIAP)• School Improvement Plan (SIP)• Positive Behavior Supports (FL-PBS)• Response to Intervention (FL PS/RtI)• NCLB & IDEIA• Race to the Top (RTTT)• Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) &

Florida Center for Research – Science, Technology & Mathematics (FCR-STEM)

Before adding one more thing….

www.safetycenter.navy.mil

5

Strategies for Successfully Addressing these Challenges

• Anticipate the Future• Use of Highly Effective Practices• Efficient Delivery of those Practices• Data to Evidence Effectiveness of Practices• Strong Professional Development and

Support to Sustain Effective Practices• Communicating Clearly and Frequently with

Stakeholders• Use Framework to Integrate Common

Elements of Diverse Initiatives.

The Future:Re-Authorization of ESEA

• Data-Based Problem-Solving (MTSS) – Learn Act (Literacy) S. 929IS

• (x) applying the principles of universal design for learning;• (xi) using age-appropriate screening assessments,

diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments to identify individual learning needs, to inform instruction, and to monitor--

– (I) student progress and the effects of instruction over time

• (xv) using strategies to enhance children's--– (I) motivation to communicate, read, and write; and– (II) engagement in self-directed learning

– Blueprint for Reform 2010• "Instead of labeling failures, we will reward success.

Instead of a single snapshot, we will recognize progress and growth. And instead of investing in the status quo, we must reform our schools to accelerate student achievement, close achievement gaps..."

Senate Bill 541

• Achievement through Prevention Act (PBIS)– “The Achievement Through Prevention Act

provides support for states, local educational agencies and schools to increase implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and early intervening services. This bill promises to improve student academic achievement and to reduce disciplinary problems in schools while improving coordination with similar activities and services provided under the federal special education law.”

9

Highly Effective Practices:Research

• High quality academic instruction (e.g., content matched to student success level, frequent opportunity to respond, frequent feedback) by itself can reduce problem behavior (Filter & Horner, 2009; Preciado, Horner, Scott, & Baker, 2009, Sanford, 2006)

• Implementation of school-wide positive behavior support leads to increased academic engaged time and enhanced academic outcomes (Algozzine & Algozzine, 2007; Horner et al., 2009; Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006)

• “Viewed as outcomes, achievement and behavior are related; viewed as causes of the other, achievement and behavior are unrelated. (Algozzine, et al., 2011)

• Children who fall behind academically will be more likely to find academic work aversive and also find escape-maintained problem behaviors reinforcing (McIntosh, 2008; McIntosh, Sadler, & Brown, 2010)

10

Cycle of Academic and Behavioral Failure: Aggressive Response

(McIntosh, 2008)

Teacher presents student with grade

level academic task

Student engages in problem behavior

Teacher removes academic task or removes student

Student escapes academic task

Student’s academic skills do not improve

So, which is it…

Academic problems lead to behavior problems?

or

Behavior problems lead to academic problems?

Not sure…

Probably a combination of both

11

The integration/combination of the two:

• are critical for school success

• utilize the three tiered prevention model

• incorporate a team approach at school level, grade level, and individual level

• share the critical feature of data-based decision making

• produce larger gains in literacy skills than the reading-only model

(Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2007)

School-wide Behavior & Reading Support

Historical Perspective

• PS/RTI has piloted 30+ schools and 7 districts in developing district and school-based MTSS across all three tiers.

• FLPBS has supported over 1100 schools and 52 districts to implement Tier 1 PBS and ~300 schools to implement Tier 2 PBS.

• PS/RtI has participated in the DA Process by supporting 5 RtI Specialists to be part of the DA teams

Collaboration

• Approximately 2 years ago, leadership in both projects and from DOE began to discuss the commonalities and collaboration of the two projects.

• The formal collaboration between projects began last year and was reflected in shared trainings, work groups, and similar action steps in RFAs.

January 2011: 52/67 Districts = 78% of the State!

Scaling Up Together!• Alachua• Baker• Bay• Bradford• Brevard• Charlotte• Citrus• Collier• Gadsden• Gilchrist• Glades• Hamilton• Hardee• Hendry • Hernando• Jackson

• Lee• Levy• Madison• Manatee• Marion• Martin• Miami-Dade• Monroe• Okeechobe

e• Pasco• Pinellas• Polk• Santa Rosa• St. Johns • Taylor• Walton

• Calhoun• Escambia• Flagler• Franklin• Gulf• Highlands• Hillsboroug

h• Indian River• Jefferson• Lake

• Leon• Liberty• Osceola• Putnam• Sarasota• Seminole• St. Lucie• Sumter• Union• Wakulla

• Columbia• De Soto• Dixie• Okaloosa• Lafayette• Nassau• Orange• Washington

BOTH: 48% (32/67)

PBS Only: 30%

(20/67)

RtI Only: 10% (7/67)

Neither:12% (8/67)

• Palm Beach• Suwannee• Volusia

• Broward• Clay• Duval• Holmes

88% of Florida School Districts

Context

+

=

_______________________________________________________________________

Efficient Delivery of Highly Effective Practices

• Statewide District Needs Assessment Results:– Integrate Practices to Reduce Duplication, Increase

Effective Use of Personnel and Provide Greater Support for Instruction Less is More.

– Focus Resource Development and District Resources On:

– Evidence-based Coaching Strategies– Leadership Skills to Support MTSS– Family and Community Engagement– Aligning PK-12 Alignment– Evaluation Models to Demonstrate Outcomes– Common Language/Common Understanding Around an

Integrated Data-Based Problem-Solving Process– Integrating Technology and Universal Design for Learning

Big Idea!

• We need to model a collaborative, integrated Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) process at the state level so that we can advocate for it at the district and school level.

• We need a common language and common understanding!

Mission and VisionMulti-Tiered System of Student Supports - Inter-Project Collaborative

The collaborative vision of the Florida Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention (FL PS/RtI) and the Florida Positive Behavior Support/Response to Intervention for Behavior (FLPBS/RtI:B) Projects is to:• Enhance the capacity of all Florida school districts to successfully

implement and sustain a multi-tiered system of student supports with fidelity in every school;

• Accelerate and maximize student academic and social-emotional outcomes through the application of data-based problem solving utilized by effective leadership at all levels of the educational system;

• Inform the development, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of an integrated, aligned, and sustainable system of service delivery that prepares all students for post-secondary education and/or successful employment within our global society.

Translating Mission to Motion

• Created Leadership Team – Leadership Team became STT in function

• Created workgroups to develop vision and resources:– Leadership– Coaching– DBPS– Evaluation– PK-12 Alignment– Family and Community Engagement – Sub Leadership team – protocol and logistics– Technology?

Translating Mission to Motion

• Core values of the workgroups:– Work group formed by ILT– Each work group operates off an approved proposal

of activities– Minutes kept of all meetings– Each group reports out to ILT – Workgroups charged with:

• Exploring research in area• Developing conceptual framework• Proposing the scope of activities• Developing content/products/etc.

– Workgroups are not the technical assistance and support providers

– ILT determines how materials, products, trainings are delivered

Work Group Proposal

• Required by each work group before approved by ILT– Topic identified by ILT– Facilitator and members– General purpose– How does it relate to the grant

deliverables– What are the anticipated outcomes for

2011

Leadership Team Workgroup

• To provide a framework for educational leadership comprised of those leadership skills and practices contributing to successful and sustained system reform leading to improved instructional practices and student outcomes.

Evidence-based Definition

Effective district leadership is evidenced by teams or individuals who:

• Establish and articulate a clear vision with a sense of urgency for change, maintain focus and deliver a consistent message of implementation over time

• Focus on schools (districts are successful when schools are successful)

• Create relationships with stakeholders based upon mutual respect and shared responsibility

• Engage in expert problem solving – Identify the correct barriers and goals efficiently and effectively– Engage in good problem analysis with an understanding that there are many

typical barriers to attaining school goals.– Know that there are several identified strategies for removing barriers and

achieving the vision and apply appropriate strategies based upon school-specific needs

– Evaluate the effectiveness of implemented strategies

• Invest in professional development

(Leithwood, 2010; Barnhardt, 2009; Crawford & Torgeson, 2007)

Coaching Workgroup

• Develop a working model of Coaching Functions that addresses the core skills/competencies/and knowledge sets needed to lead/support/and evaluate implementation and sustainability of the MTSS model in schools/districts.

• The Coaching model will be created specifically for use by district leadership teams to enhance capacity of their schools to support the MTSS initiative. Therefore, district level personnel will be the target audience for use of the Coaching model.

Coaching Domains

Professional Development

Leadership Support

Coaching Responsibilities

1) Demonstrate effective interpersonal communication skills2) Use multiple types and sources of data to answer a variety of

problem-solving questions3) Disseminate evidence-based content knowledge

a. Organizational Change/Implementation Processb. Integrated MTSSS Three-Tiered Modelc. Best Practices in Reading, Math, Behavior Instructiond. Involving culturally diverse families and community partners

4) Facilitate team-based collaborative problem solving with all stakeholders

5) Support capacity of leadership team and staff to implement & sustain a MTSSS

6) Provide professional development training and technical assistance7) Evaluate the impact of coaching activities and supports

DBPS Workgroup

• Develop a model/template for data-based decision-making at the entire school, group of student or individual student levels that can be applied by schools and districts. The primary outcome will be the development of the conceptual framework, training resources, and exemplars that will be used for professional development at the district level.

Program Evaluation Workgroup

• To develop an integrated program evaluation model for academic and behavior domains. The model will be driven by evaluation questions derived from the literature and other data sources (e.g., Projects’ program evaluation data) on implementing and evaluating multi-tiered systems of support for students (MTSS).

• The model will have applications at all levels of the educational system (e.g., school-, district-, and state-levels) and result in data that can be used by multiple stakeholders (e.g., Projects’ staff, State Transformation Team, district and school leadership teams) to inform decision-making.

Pre-K Alignment Workgroup• Develop district and school capacity for RtI implementation

through the development of a state-wide PK-12 Alignment model that enables efficiency of a district-wide scale-up of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). The mission of the PK-12 Alignment Workgroup is to ensure alignment between the activities conducted within the Secondary Pilot and the other workgroups (i.e., Coaching, Program Evaluation, Family & Community Engagement, Data-Based Problem-Solving, and Leadership). The PK-12 Alignment Model will be able to articulate the following:– Scale-up MTSS district-wide

• How much do these implementation procedures look the same?• What is vertical articulation in terms of policies, procedures/practices, and data?

– Leadership• How is the leadership organized structurally? (PK-12 Alignment Workgroup will

take primary responsibility but Leadership Workgroup will deliver information)

– Grade Levels• What is consistent across grade levels?• What is different across grade levels?

Family and Community Engagement

The mission of the Inter-Project Family and Community Engagement Workgroup is to build the capacity of families and educators to engage in collaborative, data-based problem-solving in order to support student learning within MTSSS. Communication networks will be developed to share information and products among key stakeholders in order to increase families’ awareness and understanding of PS/RtI as well as educators’ awareness and understanding of families’ role in PS/RtI. Training modules, informational videos, and tools will be developed in order to build families’ and educators’ skills in collaborative, data-based problem-solving.

Sub Leadership Team Activities

• District Action Planning & PS (DAPPS) Process

• Integrating materials and resources• Mapping of resources• Evaluation models for state-wide and inter-

project activities• Inter-project Professional Development

process• Plan for “rollout”• Summer Conference

Goal

• Begin working in inter-project teams at the district level by Fall 2011

• Build a resource and support system for DLTs

• Define our support and evaluation systems as we implement.

District Action Planning & Problem-Solving (DAPPS) Process

• Collaboration of PSRtI, FLPBS and DA staff– 2-4 person district teams

• Protocol for DAPPS Process– Step 1: District readiness for DAPPS– Step 2: Needs Assessment– Step 3: Action Planning – Group

problem-solving used– Step 4: Delivery of Training and TA– Step 5: Evaluation

Needs Assessment• Determine if the district mission statement includes

appropriate, measurable student accountability goals   • Determine whether the district is demonstrating

continued growth based on academic and behavioral data (Making gains, performance declining, stagnant) 

• Determine if district leadership organized to implement RtI with integrity and necessary support

• Determine whether the district is using a District Plan for RtI Implementation

• Determine capacity for district-based professional development and technical assistance

• Determine level of RtI implementation in the district• Identify regional technical assistance support

priorities– Based on data gathered in areas 1-5, what are the

recommended TA priorities? – Based on aggregate data gathered in areas 1-5, identify the

three most common TA needs in the region

Needs Assessment Debriefing

• Three sources/types of data– Archival quantitative data– Self-report data– Interview data

• Summary Debriefing – Sets the stage for organizational Problem-

Solving– Sensitive to district concerns of “looking bad”– Structured as “hypothesis testing” format

(i.e., problem analysis at the district level).

Problem-Solving MTSS Implementation at the District Level

• Four basic “hypotheses” to frame Needs Assessment data:1. Are students meeting academic & behavioral

achievement/growth expectations? If not sufficient…Why?

2. Check the fidelity of implementing MTSS at the district and building levels? If not sufficient…Why?

3. Check the capacity to implement the necessary infrastructures for supporting MTSS? If not sufficient…Why?

4. Is there sufficient consensus/buy-in among all stakeholders for implementing MTSS?

Resources for ImplementationMTSSS Inter-Project Staff

Don KincaidPBS Project Co-Director

Heather GeorgePBS Project Co-Director

George BatschePS/RtI Project

Co-Director

Michael CurtisPS/RtI ProjectCo-Director

Bambi LockmanFLDOE

Bureau Chief

Karen ChildsPBS Project

Program Evaluator

Brian GauntInter-Project Coordinator

Jose CastilloPS/RtI Project

Program Evaluator

Clark DormanPS/RtI Project Leader

Heather DiamondFLDOE

FLDOE-RtI Project Liaison

Kathy ChristiansenPBS Project

Tech. Assist. Coord.

Stephanie MartinezPBS Project

Tech. Assist. Coord.

Beth HardcastlePS/RtI Project

Regional Coordinator

Deanne CowleyPS/RtI Project

Regional Coordinator

Kelly JusticePS/RtI Project

Regional Coordinator

Martha MurrayPBS Project

Tech. Assist. Coord.

Therese SandomierskiPBS Project

Tech. Assist. Coord.

Michael McAuleyPS/RtI Project

Regional Facilitator

Lisa YountPS/RtI Project

Regional Facilitator

Larry RublePS/RtI Project

Regional Faciliator

Michelle WhitePBS Project

Tech. Assist. Coord.

Anna WinnekerPBS Project

Tech. Assist. Coord

Rebecca SarloPS/RtI Project

Secondary Coordinator

Shelby RobertsonPS/RtI ProjectMathematics

Facilitator

Pam SudduthPS/RtI Project

Literacy Facilitator

Devon MinchPBS Project Tech. Assist.

Specialist

Rose IovannonePBS Project

Ann SellandDA &PS/RtI Project

RtI Specialist

Jayna SnyderDA & PS/RtI Project

RtI Specialist

Patricia VickersDA & PS/RtI Project

RtI Specialist

Wendy AtkinsStaff Support,

Logistics & Comm. Coord.

Amanda MarchPBS/PS-RtI Project

Post-Doc Researcher

Eileen LyonsDA & PS/RtI Project

RtI Specialist

Roxana SantosDA & PS/RtI Project

RtI Specialist

Kimberly Cano TaylorDA & PS/RtI Project

RtI Specialist

Kevin StockslagerPS/RtI ProjectPS/RtI Project

Evaluator

Amber BrundagePS/RtI Project

Doctoral Research

Judi HydePS/RtI Project

Communication Coord.

Stevi SchermondPS/RtI ProjectStaff Assistant

Teri HunterPS/RtI Project

Business Analyst

Dan SoudersPBS Project

Data System Coord.

David DavisPS/RtI Project

Data System Coord.

Tech SupportInter-Project

TBD

Tech SupportInter-Project

TBD

Tech SupportInter-Project

TBD

Organizing for Collaboration

Inter-Project (FLPBS & FL PS/RtI)Leadership Team

MTSSS Model Development

Service Delivery Model Development

Inter-Project Program Evaluation Development

Training & TA Service

Data Evaluation

System

Project & Process Capacity

Data Evaluation

System

Inter-Project Web-based Resource Warehouse

Logistics, Communication, & Technology

MTSSS Model Curriculum

& Assessment Development

Inter-Project Staff

Development

Specialized DLT Support ServicesDifferentiated Accountability

Race to the TopLeadership

Policy & BudgetDistrict/School Improvement

Just Read, FloridaFCRR & FCR-STEM,

ESEFLPBS – FLPS/RtI – Secondary RTI

Student Services & Technology

Statewide Education Collaborative Partners and

Agencies

MTSSS Project “Consultants”

District Action Planning & Problem-Solving (DAPPS) Process

District ReadinessNeeds Assessment

Small Group Planning Process(Org. Problem Solving)

Resources/Training/Tech. AssistEvaluation of MTSSS Fidelity &

Effectiveness

Work Group MTSSS

Component Models

“Leadership”“MTSS Coaching”

“Data-based Problem-solving”

“PK-12 Alignment”“Family &

Community Engagement”

“Accountability, Evaluation &

Sustainability”

District Leadership

Team

Parents&

Community Partners

SchoolLeadership Teams

Grade/Content Instructional Teams

Students

QUESTIONS?

Contact

Heather Peshak George, Ph.D. • Email: hgeorge@usf.eduBrian Gaunt, Ph.D.• Email: bgaunt@usf.edu

University of South FloridaWebsite: http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.eduWebsite: http://www.floridarti.usf.edu