Reaching Across the Divide Partnerships in RtI

Document Sample
Reaching Across the Divide Partnerships in RtI Powered By Docstoc
					       Re-visioning
Intervention: RtI 2 in

         Secondary
         Nancy Frey, Ph.D.
  San Diego State University
     PowerPoint available at
     www.fisherandfrey.com
First, the bad news…

There’s no
 “magic in a
 box” for RtI
Even worse…

Everyone
 expects
 that you’re
 a magician!
What is Response to
Intervention?
Required by IDEA, 2004
   A multi-tiered approach to identifying learning disabilities
    in reading and mathematics
   Provides an alternative to discrepancy models
   Allows proactive intervention before identification
   Both a policy and a practice
   Allocates up to 15% of special education funding formula
    for proactive intervention
   Regulations went into effect October 2006
Problems with LD
Identification

Traditional approaches to identification through
  discrepancy models were inadequate
 Led to misdiagnosis of oral expression,
  listening comprehension, reading and math
  difficulties
 Large increases in students identified as
  having a learning disability
Two possible reasons for
reading difficulties
   Cognitive processing factors
       Inherent limitations in reading related to cognitive
        difficulties that make it difficult for a student to
        acquire foundational reading skills
   Experiential and instructional factors
       Deficiencies in the student’s literacy skills and/or
        literacy instruction
    F. R. Vellutino, et al, 2003 RtI Symposium
Misdiagnosing students?
Traditional approach
   Definition by discrepancy
       IQ/Achievement discrepancy (“s/he should be
        doing better”)
   Definition by exclusion
       use of exclusionary criteria (“it can’t be anything
        else”)
Type I and Type II Errors
   Traditional approach failed to discriminate
    between experiential/instructional
    inadequacies and true disabilities
   Led to misidentification of students with
    learning disabilities (Type I: “false negatives”
    and Type II: “false positives”)
Making Instruction
 and Intervention
      Responsive
  Traditional View of Learning

 When time and instruction are held constant…




                                                  LEARNING




Adapted from Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009   … learning outcomes
                                             vary.
 A New View of Learning

When time and instruction are variable…




                                                 LEARNING

                                              … learning is
                                               held constant.

 Adapted from Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009
“Tears of intervention”
Response to Instruction
and Intervention (RtI2)
   Tier 1: Quality core instruction
   Tier 2: Supplemental intervention
   Tier 3: Intensive intervention




                 Tier 1:                         Tier 2:
                                                                                Tier 3:
                 70+%                            20-30%                         5-15%

        Manipulate variables…
     Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (in press). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction
     and intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
What Variables Can You
Control?
   Frequency (time)
   Duration (time)
   Assessment (instruction)
   Group size (instruction)
   Access to expertise (instruction)
   Staff collaboration (instruction)
   Student Monitoring Team (instruction)
   Others?
Tier 1:
Quality Core Instruction


  Tier 1:
  70+%


                                           Tier 2:                        Tier 3:
                                           20-30%                         5-15%


    Manipulate variables…
  Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (in press). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction
  and intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY

                                                                     “I do it”
                Focus Lesson
                      Guided
                    Instruction                                          “We do it”

                                                                               “You do it
                                               Collaborative                    together”

                                               Independent                          “You do it
                                                                                     alone”
                                STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
Gradual Release of Responsibility Model
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Red flags for Tier 1
                      Less than 70% of the
                       school at or near grade
                       level
                      Too much whole-group
                       instruction
                      No evidence of flexible
                       grouping
                      Blaming students for
                       failure
                      “This is how I’ve always
                       done it”
Tier 2:
Supplemental intervention




                                        Tier 2:
                                        20-30%
             Tier 1:                                                      Tier 3:
             70+%
                                                                          5-15%


    Manipulate variables…
  Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (in press). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction
  and intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
What does Tier 2 look like?
   PROGRAM                        WHO?
     Specialized instruction        General education

   GROUPING                          teacher, reading
     Homogeneous small
                                      specialist, S/LP
      groups                       WHERE?
   ASSESSMENT                       General education

     1-2 times monthly
                                      classroom



       DESIGNED TO ACCELERATE LEARNING
Examples of Tier 2 Supplemental
Instruction and Intervention
   Additional guided instruction
   Lower group size (2-5 students)
   Afterschool tutorials
   Increased expertise (teacher, S/LP, reading
    specialist, etc.)
   Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) for progress
    monitoring
   Family involvement
   Student Monitoring Team feeds forward to improve
    instruction
Small group guided instruction
 Additive--done in addition to core program
 Frequency--should be daily*
 Intensity--specialized approaches targeted
  at specific areas of difficulty
 Duration--typically 20 weeks
* Daily instruction can come from
  a team of Tier 2 interventionists
Red flags for Tier 2
   Replacement instead of
    supplementary
    instruction
   Disconnected from
    curriculum
   No mechanism for
    communication
    between professionals
   Used as a Band-aid to
    fix other schoolwide
    woes
Tier 3:
Intensive intervention




              Tier 1:                      Tier 2:
                                                                           Tier 3:
              70+%
                                           20-30%                          5-15%

     Manipulate variables…
  Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (in press). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction
  and intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
What does Tier 3 look like?
   PROGRAM                       WHO?
     Intensive intervention        General education

   GROUPING                         teacher, reading
     individuals
                                     specialist, S/LP,
                                     outside interventionist
   ASSESSMENT
                                  WHERE?
     1-2 times monthly
                                    Designated by school




    STUDENTS WHO ARE “NON-RESPONSIVE” MAY BE
     REFERRED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION TESTING
Red flags for Tier 3
   A rush to refer to
    special education
   Lack of patience
   Too much reliance on
    scripted programs
   Too much reliance on
    special education staff
   Can’t support decisions
    with data
Examples of Tier 3 Intensive
Instruction and Intervention
   One-to-one instruction
   Increased duration and frequency
   Frequent CBM for progress monitoring
   Experts provide instruction--every certificated adult on
    campus has students
   Specialized assessments
   Increased family involvement
   Student Monitoring Team feeds forward to improve
    programmatic efforts
          Teacher remains central figure in these efforts
RtI2 in   Action
RtI2 in action
   California public charter high school with 450
    students
   62% free/reduced lunch
   55% English language learners; 14%
    unredesignated
   12 languages spoken
   Urban community
   9% are students with disabilities
   Fully inclusive
The problem…
 How could students at risk be
  supported?
 How could we avoid the iatrogenic*
  effect?
Iatrogenic: The surgery was successful
but the patient died.
Tier 1 in action

   Commitment to a gradual release of
    responsibility model of instruction in
    classrooms
       Scaffolds student learning
       Provides a means for Tier 2 interventions
   Grading based on competencies only, with
    10% +/- for participation, etc.
Competencies for
English 9 and 10
   Fall Competencies
       Literacy letters
       Essential Question essay: What is Race and Does It Matter?
       Persuasive techniques
       Essential Question essay: Can You Buy Your Way to Happiness?
       Oral language (retelling and dramatic monologue)
   Spring Competencies
       Literacy letters
       Essential question essay: Who Am I? Why Do I Matter?
       Summarizing
       Poetry
       Essential Question presentation: Health Is…
Tier 2 in action
   Additional guided instruction in the classroom
       Classroom teacher, special education support
        teacher, English language learner support teacher
   Academic Recovery
       Student grades are monitored by the Academic
        Recovery coordinator
       Weekly 90 minute small group sessions
        scheduled for the entire grade level
Tier 3 in action
   One-to-one tutorials at lunch
       Lunch is 60 minutes; 30 minutes for Tier 3
        intensive intervention
   General dismissal is at 3:00; 3:00-4:00
    reserved for tutorials and Tier 3 intensive
    intervention
       Staffed by credentialed teachers
       Academic Recovery coordinator, reading
        specialist and math department chair oversee
        progress monitoring
Purposes of progress
monitoring
   To determine whether the intervention is
    effective
   Standards-based
   Assess marker variables that have been
    demonstrated to lead to instructional target
   Sensitive to small incremental changes over
    time
   Comparable across students (NASDSE,
    2005)
Progress monitoring in literacy
   Oral and silent reading fluency norms
    (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006)
   Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (Leslie &
    Caldwell, 2006)
   Maze assessments (Wiley & Deno, 2005)
   Content vocabulary measures (Espin, Shin, &
    Busch, 2005)
   Analytic writing assessments (Diercks-Gransee,
    Weissenburger, Johnson, & Christensen, 2009)
Analytic writing
assessment CBM
        1. Total words written (TWW)

        2. Average number of words written per minute (AWPM)

        3. Total words spelled correctly (TWSC)

        4. Total number of complete sentences (TCS)

        5. Average length of complete sentences (ALCS)

        6. Correct punctuation marks (CPM)

        7. Correct word sequences (CWS)

        8. Incorrect word sequences (ICWS)

        9. CWS – ICWS =
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Rothenberg, C. (in press).
         Leading a
Collaborative Effort
            for RtI2
Reaching across the divide

  Opportunities for collaboration between general and
           special education in program design:
Conducting professional development
Assist in selecting screening measurements and
   scientifically-based intervention approaches
Interpret school’s progress in meeting intervention
   needs
Reaching across the divide
  Opportunities for collaboration between general
          and special education in program
                  implementation:
Fostering oral and written language development
Working with small groups of students in the
  general education classroom
Working with families to understand screening and
  progress assessments
Paradigm shifts
through leadership
From viewing the problem with the student …




    … to analyzing the teaching/learning
                 interaction.
Paradigm shifts
through leadership
  From a placement orientation …




    … to a teaching orientation.
Paradigm shifts
through leadership

       From measurement …




          … to evaluation.
 Paradigm shifts
 through leadership

           From special education as a place …




            … to special education as a service.
Adapted from VanDerHayden & Kurns, 2006
The Takeaway
   Instruction and Intervention are linked
   Manipulate variables (time, assessment,
    expertise, instruction) to intensify intervention
   Build in a feed forward method so that RtI2
    results inform classroom instruction and
    programmatic improvements
   Keep the teacher and family at the center of
    communication
Questions?
PowerPoint available at
www.fisherandfrey.com
  Click on “Resources” to access

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:1/28/2013
language:English
pages:49