Teacher Education Division Conference Charlotte, NC George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director Institute for School Reform Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI.

Teacher Education Division ConferenceCharlotte, NC

George M. BatscheProfessor and Co-DirectorInstitute for School Reform

Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI ProjectUniversity of South Florida

www.floridarti.usf.edu

• www.floridarti.usf.edu– /tools/assessments

• www.florida-rti.org– Introductory Course

• www.rtinetwork.org– Get Started

• www.fcrr.org• www.justreadflorida.org• www.rti4success.org

• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions.

(Batsche, et al., 2005)

• Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

ACADEMIC SYSTEMS

Tier 3: Comprehensive & Intensive Students who need individualized interventions.

Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Students who need more support in addition to the core curriculum.

Tier 1: Core Curriculum All students, including students who require curricular enhancements for acceleration.

BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS

Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Students who need individualized intervention.

Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Students who need more support in addition to school-wide positive behavior program.

Tier 1: Universal Interventions All students in all settings.

ACADEMIC SYSTEMS

Tier 3: Comprehensive & Intensive Students who need individualized interventions.

Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Students who need more support in addition to the core curriculum.

Tier 1: Core Curriculum All students, including students who require curricular enhancements for acceleration.

BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS

Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Students who need individualized intervention.

Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Students who need more support in addition to school-wide positive behavior program.

Tier 1: Universal Interventions All students in all settings.

• Academic Engaged Time (AET) is the best predictor of student achievement– 330 minutes in a day, 1650 in a week and 56,700 in a year– This is the “currency” of instruction/intervention– Its what we have to spend on students– How we use it determines student outcomes.

• MOST students who are behind will respond positively to additional CORE instruction. – Schools have more staff qualified to deliver core

instruction than specialized instruction.– Issue is how to schedule in such a way as to provide more

exposure to core.

• Rate is growth per week (month) necessary to close the GAP

• Rate becomes the statistic we need to define evidence-based intervention (EBI)

• EBI is any intervention that results in the desired RATE

1. Accelerating students at or above proficiency– Gifted Education– Establishing benchmarks

2. Prevention: Identify students at-risk for literacy failure BEFORE they actually fail.– Kindergarten screening, intervention and progress

monitoring is key.– No excuse for not identifying ALL at-risk students

by November of the kindergarten year.– This strategy prevents the GAP.– Managing GAPs is more expensive and less likely

to be successful.

3. Early Intervention– Purpose here is the manage the GAP.– Students who are more that 2 years behind have a

10% chance, or less, or catching up.– Benchmark, progress monitoring data, district-wide

assessments are used to identify students that have a gap of 2 years or less.

– Students bumping up against the 2 year level receive the most intensive services.

– This more costly and requires more specialized instruction/personnel

4. Intensive Intervention– Reserved for those students who have a GAP of

more than 2 years and the rate of growth to close the GAP is unrealistic. Too much growth—too little time remaining.

– Problem-solving is used to develop instructional priorities.

– This is truly a case of “you cannot do something different the same way.”

– This is the most costly, staff intensive and least likely to result in goal attainment

Addl.Diagnostic

Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

All Students at a grade level

ODRsMonthly

Bx Screening

Bench-Mark

Assessment

AnnualTesting

Behavior Academics

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly Assessments

StandardProtocol

SmallGroupDifferen-tiatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

• State Management Group• State Transformation Team• Regional RtI Coordinators• DA Regional RtI Specialists• District Based Leadership Teams• School Based Leadership Teams• School-Based Coaches• Advisory Committee

• Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction• Office of Early Learning• Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development and

Retention• Just Read, Florida!• Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services• Accountability Research and Measurement• Office of Communications and Public Affairs• Educator Quality• Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Services, Office of

the Chancellor• Student Achievement, Office of the Chancellor

• Scale up quickly with fidelity per the comprehensive plan with considerations to leadership, resources, funding, etc., as related to Differentiated Accountability Plan, school change and current educational context and fiscal realities in Florida.

Overall Goal of the State Transformation Team

• Office of Achievement Language Acquisition• Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Project• Office of Early Learning• Florida Center for Interactive Media• Florida Center for Reading Research• Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services• Bureau of School Improvement• Florida Center for Research-Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Math• Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project• Bureau of Family and Community Outreach• RtI Teaching Learning Connections• Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction• Just Read, Florida!

DA Region 1

DA Region 2

DA Region 3

DA Region 4

DA Region 5

PS/RtI Pilot Districts

PS/RtI North Region PS/RtI Regional Coordinator 2 DA RtI Specialists

PS/RtI Central Region PS/RtI Regional Coordinator 2 DA RtI Specialists

PS/RtI South Region PS/RtI Regional Coordinator 2 DA RtI Specialists

Florida Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project

• Added 5 RtI Specialists to DA Regional Teams• Completed Years 1 and 2 of Statewide Training• Completed Years 1 and 2 of Pilot School Training• 6337 Individuals Enrolled in the On-Line RtI Introductory Course• 2831 Individuals Completed the On-Line RtI Introductory Course• 24 Regional Meetings to Support District RtI Plan Development

– 66 of 67 Districts Attended– 31 Districts Submitted Plans for Voluntary Review in June– Visit www.floridarti.usf.edu (District Plan Examples)

• 5, 3-Day Regional Training of Trainers Meetings– 61 Districts Sent Teams to be Trained

• 3 Regional Meetings for Principal Leadership Training on RtI• Direct Technical Assistance to Districts

• State Infrastructure and Plan• District Infrastructure and Plan

– www.nasdse.org for plan• Building Infrastructure and Plan

– www.nasdse.org for plan• Professional Development• Technical Assistance• Implementation Monitoring and Integrity• Program Evaluation

Consensus

Infrastructure

Implementation

Goal 4 Indicator

• Component• 1 = Present 2 = Partially Present 3 = Absent• Problem Identification • One ore more replacement behaviors were identified• 1 2 3 • Data describing current and expected levels of performance collected• 1 2 3 • A gap analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate tier of intervention • 1 2 3 • Problem Analysis• Hypotheses were developed across multiple domains • 1 2 3 • Hypotheses were developed to determine if the student was not performing the replacement behavior because of

a performance and/or skill deficit• 1 2 3 • Data were used to determine viable or active hypotheses for why the replacement behavior was not occurring• 1 2 3

0.00

1.00

2.00

Dat

a to

det

erm

ine

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

Dat

a to

det

erm

ine

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

Dec

isio

ns m

ade

tom

odify

cor

e or

Uni

vers

al s

cree

ning

or o

ther

dat

a us

ed

Team

hyp

othe

ses

toid

entif

y re

ason

s fo

r

Dat

a us

ed to

dete

rmin

e

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

or

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

or

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

or

Crit

eria

for p

ositi

veR

tI w

ere

defin

edP

rogr

ess

mon

itorin

gda

taD

ecis

ion

rega

rdin

gst

uden

t RtI

was

Pla

n fo

r con

tin,

mod

ifyin

g, o

r

1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 8 9 10 11

Item

Score

0.00

1.00

2.00

Dat

a to

det

erm

ine

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

Dat

a to

det

erm

ine

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

Dec

isio

ns m

ade

tom

odify

cor

e or

Uni

vers

al s

cree

ning

or o

ther

dat

a us

edTe

am h

ypot

hese

s to

iden

tify

reas

ons

for

Dat

a us

ed to

dete

rmin

eM

odifi

catio

ns m

ade

to c

ore

inst

ruct

ion

-M

odifi

catio

ns m

ade

to c

ore

inst

ruct

ion

-M

odifi

catio

ns m

ade

to c

ore

inst

ruct

ion

-S

upp.

inst

ruct

ion

deve

lope

d or

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

orS

upp.

inst

ruct

ion

deve

lope

d or

Crit

eria

for p

ositi

veR

tI w

ere

defin

edP

rogr

ess

mon

itorin

gda

taD

ecis

ion

rega

rdin

gst

uden

t RtI

was

Pla

n fo

r con

tin,

mod

ifyin

g, o

r

1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 8 9 10 11

Item

Score

0.00

1.00

2.00D

ata

to d

eter

min

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofD

ata

to d

eter

min

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofD

ecis

ions

mad

e to

mod

ify c

ore

orU

nive

rsal

scr

eeni

ngor

oth

er d

ata

used

Team

hyp

othe

ses

toid

entif

y re

ason

s fo

rD

ata

used

tode

term

ine

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

orS

upp.

inst

ruct

ion

deve

lope

d or

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

orC

riter

ia fo

r pos

itive

RtI

wer

e de

fined

Pro

gres

s m

onito

ring

data

Dec

isio

n re

gard

ing

stud

ent R

tI w

asP

lan

for c

ontin

,m

odify

ing,

or

1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 8 9 10 11

Item

Score

0.00

1.00

2.00D

ata

to d

eter

min

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofD

ata

to d

eter

min

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofD

ecis

ions

mad

e to

mod

ify c

ore

orU

nive

rsal

scr

eeni

ngor

oth

er d

ata

used

Team

hyp

othe

ses

toid

entif

y re

ason

s fo

rD

ata

used

tode

term

ine

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Mod

ifica

tions

mad

eto

cor

e in

stru

ctio

n -

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

orS

upp.

inst

ruct

ion

deve

lope

d or

Sup

p. in

stru

ctio

nde

velo

ped

orC

riter

ia fo

r pos

itive

RtI

wer

e de

fined

Pro

gres

s m

onito

ring

data

Dec

isio

n re

gard

ing

stud

ent R

tI w

asP

lan

for c

ontin

,m

odify

ing,

or

1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 8 9 10 11

Item

Score

Pilot Schools (%)

Comparison Schools (%)

Improved 65% 48%

Declined 22% 41%

No Change 13% 11%