Connecticuts Response to Intervention (RtI) Model (A Status Report) January 2008 Prepared by: Dr. Karen A. Costello East Lyme Public Schools East Lyme,

Connecticut’s Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

(A Status Report)

January 2008Prepared by: Dr. Karen A. Costello

East Lyme Public SchoolsEast Lyme, CT 06333

860-691-4563

The Background Behind RtI Models: Federal Legislation

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)(2001) ensures academic growth and achievement for

all children regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) (2004) and

IDEA Regulations (2005) ensures free and appropriate education for

children with disabilities.

I n M a n y

I n s t a n c e s …

Traditional SPED Identification Models

Flawed

General Educator’s Repertoireof Instructional Strategies

Ineffective

Connecticut’s RtI Model

Connecticut’s Decision:

The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) decided to form a Scientifically Based Research Interventions (SRBI) State-Leadership Advisory Panel.

The term SRBI is used because RtI models are DEPENDENT on interventions in which evidence is available to attest to their effectiveness.

SRBI State-Leadership Advisory Panel

Responsibility:

Review current research and practice on

RtI in order to develop a state model that

will be implemented in school districts.

TIMELINE

November 2006 Interim Commissioner appoints an advisory panel Associate Commissioners co-chair 39 member panel June 7 Input from Advisory Panel regarding timeline

Timeline (continued)

June - August 2007

Meet at least 3 times to review work.September 2007

Advisory Panel to review draft of full document. (occurred in Oct.)

Executive Summary (occurred in Oct.)

distribution to the field, including PD Plan

for 07-08 (has not occurred).

Timeline (continued)

October 2007 Presentation to the Connecticut State Board of Education (has not occurred).November 2007 Disseminate full document to the field (has not occurred). Explore campus-based meetings with Institutes of Higher Education.

Concurrent Activity:

Literacy Summit

Connecticut’s

Commissioner of Education invited

169 local districts’ leadership teams

to a Literacy Summit

Summit Message: We Have A Reading Problem In Connecticut

• Many entering K students do not have expected language and literacy skills. [Kindergarten Inventory (language &Literacy)]*

• CMT, CAPT & NAEP reading scores continue to be flat over the past decade. [CMT Reading, CAPT Reading Across the Disciplines & NAEP]*

• Students with disabilities and English language learners perform at very low levels. [CMT]*

• Many regular education students fail to meet state goal in reading across grades. [CMT and CAPT]*

*Indicators [ ]

Message (continued)

• There are persistent large gaps in performance between non-poor and poor students and between white and their black and Hispanic classmates. [CMT]*

• Female students outperform male students, particularly at the secondary level. [CMT]*

*Indicators [ ]

Connecticut’s PreK – 16 RtI Model

Three Tiered Model

Tier I

Decision Making

Tier II

Tier III

Decision Making

SPED

Identification

Tier I

Tier I

Decision Making

Ensure appropriateness of general ed curriculum and instruction; consistency and fidelity of implementation. Early identification of individual children with academic or behavioral difficulties.

Decision Making

SPED

Identification

• Common benchmark assessments (2-3x yr) and progress monitoring• Comprehensive/differentiated instruction in key academic domains, informed by scientific research• Continuum of positive behavioral supports• Effective school and district leadership• Ongoing professional development• Adequate availability of assessment and instructional resources• Adequate human resources• Professional learning communities (PLC’s)• Materials and instruction at children’s instructional levels

Tier II

SPED

Identification

Analysis, interpretation, and application of screening and benchmark data.

Decision Making

Tier II

Supplemental

• Frequent progress monitoring (e.g. biweekly)• Additional supplemental instruction (e.g. 2-4 x a week)• Individual/small group instruction (e.g. no larger than 5 students)• Homogeneous grouping of students with similar needs/at similar levels.

Tier III

Decision Making

Decision Making

Tier

III

SPED

Identification

Analysis, interpretation, and application of data from Tier II interventions; comprehensive evaluations of individual children as appropriate

Customization and Intensity Increases- More intensive supplemental intervention (e.g. daily). - Very frequent progress monitoring (e.g., weekly) - Individual/small group (e.g. no larger than 3 students) - Homogeneous grouping

Critical Terminology

• Scientifically Research Based Intervention (SRBI)

…emphasis on providing more effective instruction for all children (primarily in the general educator’s classroom) through sound core curricula in key academic areas and positive behavioral supports, as well as through early interventions for youngsters experiencing learning or behavioral difficulties, using core curricula and interventions that are research-based as much as possible.

Critical Terminology (continued)

• Fidelity of Implementation: use and delivery of curricula, instructional strategies, behavioral systems, and interventions in the manner they were designed and intended to be used, for example, adhering to the treatment time and key features required for a particular intervention.

Critical Terminology (continued)

• Progress Monitoring: using data to track students’ progress toward a goal.

• Universal Screening (common assessments): measures that are the same for all students within a grade in a school or district and that are administered to all of those on a routine basis.

Critical Terminology (continued)

• Formative Assessments: assessments that are done during the process of student learning and are used primarily to inform instruction.

• Professional Learning Communities (PLC): Small groups of educators who assemble frequently to discuss the following questions included in school improvement plans (R. Dufour, Middle School Journal, September, 2007):

PLC Questions

1. Are we clear on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions each student is to acquire as a result of this course, grade level, and unit we are about to teach?

2. Have we agreed on the criteria we will use in assessing the quality of student work, and can we apply the criteria consistently?

PLC Questions (continued)

3. Have we developed common formative assessments to monitor each student’s learning on a timely basis?

4. Do we use the formative assessments to identify students who are having difficulty in their learning so that we can provide those students with timely systematic interventions that guarantee them additional time and support for learning until they have become proficient?

PLC Questions (continued)

5.Do we have data to assess our individual and collective effectiveness? Do assessment results help us learn from one another in ways that positively affect our classroom practice?

6. Does our team work interdependently to achieve SMART goals that are Strategic (linked to school goals), Measurable, Attainable, Results-oriented (focused on evidence of student learning rather teacher strategies), and Time-bound?

PLC Questions (continued)

7. Are continuous improvement processes built into our routine work practice?

8. Do we make decisions by building shared knowledge regarding best practices rather than simply pooling opinions?

9. Do we demonstrate, through our collective efforts, our determination to help all students learn at high levels?

PLC Questions (continued)

10. Do we use our collaborative team to focus on these critical issues?

If the Answer is

YES to the questions…

…Then, we are moving towards SYSTEMIC REFORM

of EDUCATION…

The Intent of RtIto reduce Special Education Referrals

Next Steps in Connecticut…

February - April 2008: Dissemination of the Executive SummaryMajor State-wide ConferenceRegional Conferences Consistent Message

Spring 2008: RtI Guidelines must be available to all 169 districts.

Next Steps in Connecticut…

Summer - Fall 2008:

Full document distributed

January 2009:

Implementation in 169 school districts