Foundations for A Problem Solving, School-Wide Model Rhode Island Technical Assistance Project Summer Institute July 24 and 25, 2003 Correspondence about.

Foundations for A Problem Solving, School-Wide Model

Rhode Island Technical Assistance ProjectSummer Institute

July 24 and 25, 2003

Correspondence about this presentation should be directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131. Email is [email protected], (515) 270-9030.

Overview of PS, SWM Objectives Communicate major

components of a problem solving, school wide model

Provide an integrative picture of the STRUCTURE

Example effectiveness data on model implementation

Provide a picture of the PROCESS of getting it all in place

Begin to consider application in your setting

Keep Our Eye on The Prize

100 Percent of our students proficient by the year ’13-’14

Vocabulary – Convergence of Thinking Problem Solving Model (PS): Proposed, implemented and

refined since the early ’80s in special education as an alternative system to the traditional Refer-Test-Place system. It encompasses both general education and special education systems. Initially was individual student focused.

Response To Intervention (RTI) – Also called a Standard Treatment Approach (STA): Being proposed by researchers across the country as an alternative method for identifying individuals with Learning Disabilities. An opportunity to link IDEA thinking with NCLB thinking.

School-Wide Model (SWM): An integrative way of thinking logically and rationally about meeting All childrens’ needs in a school. It represents a promising way for schools to comprehensively draw together and allocate their resources to meet childrens’ educational needs.

Important Point

They are not different The represent different spins on the

same core thinking by different people

The same “big components” are there

We will attempt to use these terms with precision for clarity sake

Important Point! Everything from here on out represents

guidelines, not absolutes The problems are the same everywhere

you go The principals for solving them are the

same The SPECIFICS will be different in your

setting

Your solutions will differ from our solutions!!!!!!

PS, RTI, School Wide Model

What it is What it is not

Represents a way of:Using data to examine the system in relation to most important results.

A panacea

Structuring thinking so that we don’t miss anything

A curriculum, an intervention, one theoretical orientation

Identifying strategies with a high probability of improving student performance and knowing if they work

One size fits all

Keeping our attention focused on the most important things

Hoops to jump through

Common sense into practice (cf. Fullan)

Easier than what came before

Quote

We have witnessed over the last 30 years numerous attempts at planned educational change. The benefits have not nearly equaled the costs, and all too often, the situation has seemed to worsen. We have, however, gained clearer and clearer insights over this period about the do’s and don’ts of bringing about change….One of the most promising features of this new knowledge about change is that successful examples of innovation are based on what might be most accurately labeled “organized common sense.” (Fullan, 1991, p. xi-xii)

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.

The Marriage of Problem Solving and School-Wide Models

Level IVIEP

Consideration

• ImplementPlan

• Evaluate

• Define the Problem

• Develop a Plan

Am

ou

nt

of

Reso

urc

es

Need

ed t

o S

olv

e P

rob

lem

The Problem Solving Approach

INTENSITY OF PROBLEM

Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem

Solving Team

ConsultationLevel I

BetweenTeachers-Parents

Level IIConsultation withOther Resources

If you teach the same curriculum, to all students, at the same time, at the same rate, using the same materials, with the same instructional methods, with the same expectations for performance and grade on a curve you have fertile ground for growing special education.

Gary Germann, 2003

The Problem Solving Process

• Implement Plan (Treatment Integrity)

Carry out the intervention

• Evaluate(Progress Monitoring Assessment)

Did our plan work?

• Define the Problem(Screening and Diagnostic Assessments)

What is the problem and why is it happening?

• Develop a Plan(Goal Setting and Planning)

What are we going to do?

Level IVIEP

Consideration

Am

ou

nt

of

Reso

urc

es

Need

ed t

o S

olv

e P

rob

lem

The Problem Solving Approach

INTENSITY OF PROBLEM

Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem

Solving Team

ConsultationLevel I

BetweenTeachers-Parents

Level IIConsultation withOther Resources

Initial Instruction

Level One

• Develop a Plan

Anecdotal documentation

• EvaluateParent and teacher determine effectiveness and need for additional resources

• Define the ProblemInformal discussion focusing on behaviors of concern

• Implement PlanParent and teacher gather information and monitor

Parent

Teacher

Consultation Between Teacher and Parent

Level IVIEP

Consideration

Am

ou

nt

of

Reso

urc

es

Need

ed t

o S

olv

e P

rob

lem

The Problem Solving Approach

INTENSITY OF PROBLEM

Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem

Solving Team

ConsultationLevel I

BetweenTeachers-Parents

Level IIConsultation withOther Resources

Strategic Instruction/Intervention

Level Two

• Develop a Plan--Team offers strategies

-Solutions generated -Plan written

• Evaluate

• Implement Plan

• Define the Problem-Available Screenings

-Further definition of the problem

- Team assists with implementation- Data collected from naturally occurring sources if possible

-Data used to evaluate progress-Success determined

Parent

Teacher

BAT

BuildingAssistance

Team

Strategic Instruction:Consultation with Other Resources

Level Three

-Implement according to written plan-Ongoing systematic data collection-Follow-up as needed

• Evaluate • Develop a Plan-Generate possible solutions-Evaluate solutions-Select a solution-Collect baseline data-Set a goal-Write action plan-Select measurement strategy -Develop plan to evaluate effectiveness• Implement Plan

Strategic Instruction: Consultation with Extended Problem Solving Team

• Define the Problem-Identify concern

-Define behavior of concern-Problem validation

-Data analyzed to determine effectiveness-Success determined by rate of progress & size of discrepancy-Recycle or determine need to consider entitlement for special education

-Problem analysis-Functional assessment -Write problem statement

Parent

Teacher

BAT AEA

Level IVIEP

Consideration

Am

ou

nt

of

Reso

urc

es

Need

ed t

o S

olv

e P

rob

lem

The Problem Solving Approach

INTENSITY OF PROBLEM

Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem

Solving Team

ConsultationLevel I

BetweenTeachers-Parents

Level IIConsultation withOther Resources

Intensive Instruction

Level Four

• Develop a Plan

• Define the Problem

• Implement Plan

--Using all data gathered at all levels problem solving , determine if appropriate interventions and whether or not special education services are needed.-Team develops IEP

Intensive Instruction: Intervention and Entitlement Consideration

(Due Process)

• Evaluate

-Identify additional areas of concern-Develop assessment questions

-Implement according to IEP-Ongoing systematic data collection-Instructional changes made as needed

-Collect additional data necessary forentitlement decision

Parent

Teacher

BAT AEA-Success determined by rate of progress and size of discrepancy-Plan rewritten once per year or as often as data indicates the need

Some Characteristics

Works in important student performance domains Academics

Reading Math Science Writing

Social, emotional and behavioral development Works for large groups, small groups and

individuals Consistent logic set is used throughout

Elements of an Effective Model

Set of goals Valid and reliable assessment system to monitor

progress Adoption of research proven materials and

programs Adequate, prioritized instructional time Differentiated instruction, grouping, and

scheduling Strong instructional leaders maintaining focus and

establishing support mechanisms An integrated system of research-based

professional development and resource allocation.

Adapted from Kame’enui and Simmons

Acknowledgments

The triangle for resource allocation comes from a number of different places Mental Health (Adelman and Taylor) Social, Emotional and Behavioral

Development (Sugai and Horner) Curriculum and Instruction (Kame’enui

and Simmons) The School Wide Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

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

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

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

School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Why use a School-Wide Approach?

The best way to address problems is to prevent them before they happen

Achievement of all students is everyone’s responsibility within a school.

Early intervention to promote success is critical to future school achievement.

Early intervention requires accurate identification of children at risk for failure.

Assessment, instruction, and meaningful outcomes for students must be aligned.

Why use a School-Wide Approach?

Some students will require intensive interventions. Assessment data will be needed to determine

resources needed to address concerns. Ongoing monitoring should direct instructional

decisions and be repeated with the frequency needed for timely interventions.

“No matter how great the idea or how compelling the research, if an intervention is not working, something must change.”

Foundations Activity #1a

Identify a person at your table to work with

Look in your activity packet, turn to Foundations activity #1a

Brainstorm a list things you remember about a PS, School wide model from the presentation. What stood out most for you? Why is it important?

Activity 1b

Come together at your table. Discuss:

How is the problem solving/school wide model similar to service delivery in your school today?

How do the models differ from the service delivery model in your school today?

What questions arise at this point for your group? Write them down, put them on the parking lot.

“Helping Children Read ...Helping Teachers Teach”Heartland Early Literacy Project

Problem Solving and the School-Wide Model in Practice

Four Organizing Principles

Earlier rather than later -- Prevention and early intervention are supremely more effective and efficient than later intervention and remediation for ensuring reading success.

Four Organizing Principles

Schools, not just programs -- Prevention and early intervention must be anchored to the school as the host environment and primary context for improving student outcomes.

Four Organizing Principles

Evidence, not opinion -- Prevention and early intervention pedagogy, programs, instruction and materials should be based on trustworthy scientific evidence.

Four Organizing Principles

Each and All-- To teach all children to read, we must teach each child to read.

Kame’enui, E. and Simmons, D. (2002)University of Oregon, BeginningReading Institute

We’re aiming to help children establish trajectories toward success

P K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 +

Low

HighTrajectory- “the path a projectile makes under the action of given forces such as thrust, wind and gravity.” --Encarta World English Dictionary

Established - Benchmark

Emerging - Strategic

Deficit - Intensive

Assessment and Instructional Grouping

Score

Time

Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 Benchmark 3

Established - Benchmark

Assessment and Instructional Grouping

Score

Time

Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 Benchmark 3

What Does the School-Wide Model Look Like?

Key Features of HELP

DIBELS Student interventions based on response

to instruction Benchmark Strategic Intensive

Ongoing Monitoring Instructional changes based on data

Literacy Team Administrative support

Continuous School ImprovementAssess Needs

Planning

Implementation and Monitoring

Evaluation

Five Stages to Implementation

Stage One Conduct School Audit Assess Student Performance

Assess Needs

Planning

Implementation

Evaluation

Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective School-

Wide Reading Programs

Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons

Conduct a School Audit

Assess Student Performance

Benchmark assessments 3 times per year for all students

Ongoing monitoring for strategic students once per month

Ongoing monitoring for intensive students once per week

Literacy team assisting teachers in providing instruction guided by data

Stage Two Analyze School and

Student Performance Identify Reading

Priorities Identify Students who

require Benchmark Intervention Strategic Intervention Intensive Intervention

Assess Needs

Planning

Implementation

Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons

Evaluation

Intensive Interventions 5%

Strategic Interventions 15%

Core Curriculum 80%

Adapted from: Sugai and Horner

Stage Three

Design Core Instructional Interventions Customize Intensive and Strategic

Interventions Assess Needs

Planning

Implementation

Evaluation

Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons

Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction toAchieve Instructional Priorities

Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction toAchieve Instructional Priorities

Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons

A Consumer’s Guide To

Evaluating a Core Reading

Program Grades K-3: A

Critical Elements Analysis

Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons

Stage Four

Establish and Implement Progress Monitoring System

Customize Progress Monitoring System for Intensive and Strategic Interventions

Assess Needs

Planning

Implementation

Evaluation

Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons

First Grade Benchmark Goals

(Working Backwards)

Established Reader by Spring of First Gradeif you hit 40 or more correct on Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring of first grade you are an established reader.

Established Alphabetic Principle by Winter of First Gradeif you hit 40 or more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in winter of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or more correct on Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring of first grade.

Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione

Kindergarten Benchmark Goals:

Established Phonological Awareness by Spring of Kindergarten

if you hit 35 to 45 correct on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in spring of K/fall of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in winter of first grade.

Established Initial Sounds (Onset) Phonological Awareness by Winter of Kindergarten

if you hit 25 - 35 correct on Onset Recognition Fluency (OnRF) in winter of K, the odds are in your favor to reach 35 to 45 correct on

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in spring of K.

Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione

Stage Five

Evaluate School Level Performance Intensify Intervention

Assess Needs

Planning

Implementation

Evaluation

Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons

How are we doing?

Components of Successful School Implementation of HELP

Administrative Support Link to School Improvement Adequate Time for Staff Development Materials Data Collection by Teachers Data Interpretation and Understanding Instruction Guided by Data

2001-2002 Beginning: Middle: 4393 End: 4590 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4336 End: 4331 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1832 End: 2108

Cross-year box plots phonological awareness KindergartenHeartland Students

:

Cross-year box plots oral reading fluency First GradeHeartland Students

Legend

2001=2002 Beginning: Middle: 4427 End: 4412 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4036 End: 4151 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1595 End: 1879

Insert K Placement Data

Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Kindergarten Across 36

School Buildings

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

PE

D P

lace

men

ts

Prior to HELPMeanHELP Implementation

Mean55% Reduction in Kindergarten New SPED

Placements

Insert 1 Placement Data

Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placments: First Grade Across 36

Schools

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

pec

ial E

du

cati

on

Pla

cem

ents

Prior to HELPMeanHELP ImplementationMean

27% Reduction in First-Grade New Special Education

Placements

Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Second Grade for 36

Schools

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

pec

ial E

du

cati

on

Pla

cem

ents

Prior to HELPMeanHELP ImplementationMean

24% Reduction in Second-Grade SPED Placements

Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Third-Grade for 36 Schools

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

pec

ial E

du

cati

on

Pla

cem

ents

Prior to HELPMeanHELP ImplementationMean

8% Reduction in Third-Grade New SPED Placements

Punch Line

Table 1. Z-Score Growth For Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 1999-2002.

Yr1-Yr2 Z Score

Yr 1- Yr 3 Z Scores

Mean Z Score 0.71 1.08

Median Z Score 0.70 1.25

Number of Scores 85 36

Low Z Score -3.76 -0.77

High Z Score 3.93 3.29

Punch Line

Table 2. Z-Score Growth For Oral Reading Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 2002-2003.

Yr1-Yr2 Z Score

Yr 1- Yr 3 Z scores

Mean Z Score 0.26 0.39

Median Z Score 0.32 0.36

Number of Scores 86 32

Low Z Score -2.15 -0.68

High Z Score 2.49 2.47

Foundations Activity #2

Leave your stuff, take your activity handout, get up and find a new table.

Rule for new table: no one from your current table should be there. Sit down. Introduce yourself.

At your new table discuss your answers to the following questions:

If we implemented a system of early intervention similar to this in all of our schools, what implications might it have for

Teachers? Administrators? Parents? NCLB Implementation? IDEA Implementation? At risk students? Students with disabilities? Talented and Gifted Students? Secondary Students?