Windram, 2009 Secondary RtI Implementation & Facilitation Holly Windram St. Croix River Education District.

Windram, 2009

Secondary RtI Implementation& Facilitation

Holly Windram

St. Croix River Education District

Windram, 2009

"A journey of a thousand

miles begins with a single

step." -Confucius

Windram, 2009

Why RtI at the Secondary Level?

“Shouldn’t all the Special Ed kids be identified already?”“I’m here to teach the kids who show up to learn.”“I have to get through my content and you want me to teach

[insert 1 million other things here]”“Won’t I have to do more work?”“How is this relevant to me - today - right now?”“It’s just another initiative.”“When is lunch?”“Is this workshop over yet?”

Windram, 2009

Windram, 2009

Why RtI at the Secondary Level

• NCLB

• IDEA 2004

• Prevention

We need more options

Windram, 2009

What’s so different about Secondary?

Windram, 2009

Specific Challenges for RtI at Secondary Schools

1) More kids!

2) Multiple feeder schools

3) More staff!

4) Decrease in individualized attention for students from staff

Windram, 2009

Specific Challenges for RtI at Secondary Schools

5) Teachers have curriculum specializations6) Emphasis on knowledge dissemination and

independent skill application.

Windram, 2009

Specific Challenges for RtI at Secondary Schools

7) Student skill and performance discrepancies are greater.

8) Students are expected to independently self-monitor, organize, and be responsible for their own learning

9) Decrease of parent involvement.

Ask the right question . . .

The question is not,

Is it possible to education all children well?

but, rather,

Do we want it badly enough?

Deborah Meier in Schmoker (2008)

Windram, 2009

Chisago Lakes High School• 1200 students

• 10% special education

• 8% free/reduced lunch

• 1% English Language Learning

• Four, 85 minute blocks

• 98% graduation rate

• Credit increase: 29 by 2009-10

Windram, 2009

02-03 School Year:Catalyst for Change

• Incoming 9th graders.

• Top concerns: academic skills, social interactions, and work completion issues

Sound familiar?

Windram, 2009

Ninth grade

“If you want to reshape high school, start by changing ninth grade.”

“. . . success or failure in ninth grade is a pivotal indicator of whether or not a student drops out.”

Windram, 2009

Timeline

Year 1 (03-04): Problem-Solving Team and Process

Year 2 (04-05): Intervention Integrity and STP Intervention development

Year 3 (05-06): RtI English 9 classYear 4 (06-07): RtI English 10, CLHS

“Check & Connect”Year 5 (07-08): See table

Windram, 2009

CLHS Three Tier RtI Model: ExamplesLevel Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s)

TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs ODRs MTS

TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs ODRs

TIER 2 Advisement Correctives (2x term) (STP) RtI 9 English class (STP) RtI 10 English class (STP) English 9 skinny classes (STP) Pre-Algebra (STP) Problem solving interventions CLHS “Check & Connect” (STP)

Grades/Credits CBM Reading & Writing CBM Reading & Writing Grades CBM Math Applications CBMs, Grades/Credits, MAPs Grades/Credits, “mini” SEI

TIER I Advisement Grade Checks (2x term) 9th grade common expectations (planners) 9th grade Link Crew NCA Goal instruction

Grades/Credits Grades/Credits Grades/Credits SEI MAZE

Windram, 2009

Timeline for decision-making

Start with

DATA

Windram, 2009

CLHS: Problem Solving

• Student Assistance Team (Regular Education) = Problem-Solving Team

• Problem-Solving Team Members: Assistant Principal, guidance counselors, school psychologist, school nurse, police liaison officer, truancy prevention, chemical health, and mental health.

• Weekly, Monday AM• 1x month data reviews with small group: AP,

Counselors, School Psych., truancy, RtI Coach

SCRED Problem-Solving Model

1. Problem Identification

What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?

2. Problem Analysis

Why is the problem occurring?

3. Plan Development

What is the goal?What is the intervention plan to address this goal?

How will progress be monitored?

4. PlanImplementation

How will implementation integrity be ensured?

5. Plan Evaluation

Is the intervention plan effective?

Windram, 2009

Problem-Solving Process at CLHS

Step 1: Student referred to SAT/Problem-Solving Team via counselors from teachers, parents, etc.

Step 2: Problem Identification data are collectedStep 3: Team prioritizes problem & decides next step:

– Level 1: Grade Level Team or Consultation/follow-up– Level 2: Support Staff Consultation – Level 3: Refer for STP– Level 4: Extended Problem-Solving Team referral– Refer to SST for consideration of SE evaluation

Windram, 2009

Who collects the data?

Attendance/grades/credits Counselors Educational History Counselors/School Psych Health review Counselors/School Nurse Observation School Psych/Paraprofessional Interviews: Parent, teacher(s), student Counselors, School Psych TIES Web Portal: CBM benchmarks (rdg, wtg, math) 3x year, K-8 NWEA MAPs (rdg, math) 2x year, Fall & Spring MCAIIs/GRAD

Counselors/School Psych/AP

Current CBM Paraprofessional

Windram, 2009

Data Reviews

• RtI students and Alt English and Math: 2x per term– Teachers identify students of concern prior to meeting– Graph review and problem-solving done as a team– RtI Teachers, Principal, Asst. Principal, 1 or more

counselors, School Psychologist

• 1x month for students in Problem-Solving– CBM graphs– Check & Connect data

Windram, 2009

Critical features of remedial literacy instruction at the secondary level

• Effective professional development• Effective instructional tools incl. core curriculum and

instructional methodology• System reorganization and support• Formative and summative assessment• Building/classroom climate that fosters high student

engagement• Committee/Team

(e.g., Allain, 2008; Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2004; Diamond, 2004)

Windram, 2009

RtI English classes

• Daily, one 85 minute block, all year– DOUBLE the instructional time!!!!– Typical English 9 & 10: 1 block, 1 semester

• Reading & writing interventions 30-40 min. daily• Core English 9 & 10 curriculum taught

– Modified pace – Adapted based on students’ needs

• CBM Reading & Writing data collected on every student• Data reviews 2x per quarter

Windram, 2009

Who are the teachers

• English Teachers: Enthusiastic, experience with “at-risk” learners

• Intervention Specialists

• These were already existing positions

Windram, 2009

How Students Are Selected RtI Eng 9

• Spring of 8th grade, teachers introduce class to students and families

• Not required

• About 18-24 students per year

Windram, 2009

How students are selectedMultiple data sources and indicators of student

engagement:• CBM scores• MAPs• State level reading tests• Attendance and grades• Current 8th grade class enrollment• 8th grade problem-solving status• Eighth grade teacher input and recommendation• No specific/formal entrance or exit criteria

Windram, 2009

RtI English 9: First quarter

• Three goals:1. Build relationships with students2. Establish regular cycle of CBM data collection &

review. Set up graphs.3. Apply problem-solving model for intervention

decisions: what and for whom

• Professional Development

Windram, 2009

First quarter supplemental instruction

Whole group academic interventions for reading fluency and writing mechanics– Daily Oral Language (DOL) – Six Minute Solution (Adams & Brown, 2003) Peer tutoring, reading fluency building intervention. Same-level pairs, students engage in repeated readings of 1-

minute nonfiction passages as their partners note the number of words read correctly.

Windram, 2009

RtI English Classes

• End of first quarter: Identify additional needs at class, small group, and individual level.

• Rest of the year:– On-going data collection and reviews– Problem-solving for class, small group, and individual level– Adapt supplemental instruction for basic reading and writing

skills based on student need

Windram, 2009

SCRED Target Scores

CBM ORF: 170 words read correct

CBM Correct Word Sequences: 64

MAP R RIT: 226

MAP M RIT: 235 – Algebra I

Windram, 2009

RtI Eng 9 ORF WRC Avg Growth

2

11

3

11

3

7

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08

Number of students

Series1

Windram, 2009

RtI Eng 9 CWS Average Growth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08

Number of students

Series1

Windram, 2009

RtI Eng 9 Achieved MAP R Benchmark

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fall 05 Spring 06 Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08

Number of Students

Series1

Windram, 2009

RtI Eng 9 MAP R RIT Growth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8th 9th 8th 9th 8th 9th

Cohort and Grade

Amount of RIT Growth

Series1

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

What happened here?

Windram, 2009

Special Education: SLD

SCRED districts use a SRBI process for SLD eligibility.

CLHS:

05-06: 1 student

06-07: 1 student

07-08: 0 students

Percent of Students making adequate growth on MAP: Grade 9 English programs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms

RTI English Traditional remedial Englishprograms

2005-06 2006-07

Percent of Students

Windram, 2009

Case Study: Jimmy

Windram, 2009

Case Study: Jimmy - 7th Grade Level

Windram, 2009

Case Study: Jimmy - 8th Grade Level

Windram, 2009

Other Tier 2 Programming

• Interventions with certified staff• Master schedule for interventions• Resource Room support staff progress monitoring• CLHS “Check & Connect” at two levels:

– Correctives (Tier 1 & 2)– CLHS “Check & Connect” = modified Check & Connect (

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/check_conn/index.asp;

Christianson, et al.) and Behavior Education Program (Crone

et al., 2004)

Windram, 2009

Program Failure Rates

28% 29%

12%

35%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1 2 3 4

Terms

Percentage of Classes Failed

Windram, 2009

Program Referral Rates

17

21

13

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4

Terms

Number of Referrals

Windram, 2009

What is the influence on schoolwide outcomes

????

Windram, 2009

16.5

14 14.3

11

10.1

22.7

13.7

16.1

14.1

9.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

School Year

Percent

% Failure Rate Term 1 ALL

% Failure Rate Term 1 9th Grade

Windram, 2009

CLHS School-wide MAZE data

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006

# correct on MAZE

12

11

10

9

Windram, 2009

Chisago Lakes Middle School• 816 students

• 10% special education

• 15% free/reduced lunch

• 1% English Language Learning

• Seven period day

• Daily homeroom - CORE Connect

Windram, 2009

CLMS Three Tier RtI Model: Examples

Level Class/Intervention Primary Assessment(s) TIER 4 ? SPECIAL EDUCATION CBMs

TIER 3 1:1 or small group interventions CBMs

ODRs TIER 2 RtI Communications (gr. 6-8) (STP)

RtI Math (gr. 6-8) (STP) CLMS “Check & Connect” (STP)

CBM Reading & Writing CBM Math Applications Grades/Credits, DPRs

TIER I CORE Connect Wall of Fame Good Cat Caught in the Act Wildcat Eye on Success Golden Plunger

Grades/ODRs Grades/Credits SEI

Windram, 2009

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

3 . 5 0 %

8 . 3 0 %

8 8 . 2 0 %

Windram, 2009

So you want to implement RtI at the Secondary Level?

Windram, 2009

Start with school-wide literacy

and/or positive behavior support

Windram, 2009

Start small

Windram, 2009

More time!

5-8 years for secondary settings

(

Windram, 2009

Be Prepared to Disrupt the Master Schedule!

Windram, 2009

Student Involvement and Relationships

Windram, 2009

Do you have data?

• Screening• Formative

• Summative• Reliable & Valid

Windram, 2009

Schedule data reviews

Windram, 2009

What is your decision-making process?

Problem-Solving Process

Is everyone trained?

Windram, 2009

When do comprehension and vocabulary instruction

happen?

“ . . . reading comprehension depends on knowledge and vocabulary. It’s an organic and cumulative process.”

Windram, 2009

Teaching content?

SIM strategies

Strategic Instruction Model

http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/

Routines to help bring order and

priority to the content

Windram, 2009

Administrator is a leader for change

Do it. Do with baby steps or not, but do it.

“If, as a school leader, you wait to improve [insert whatever you want here] until you have total buy-in from the school community, then your school will be the last to change.”

Windram, 2009

Is the administrator(s) an instructional leader?

Windram, 2009

Staff Buy-In• Start with a few motivated, charismatic staff• Make in-person connections (emails do not cut it)• Give educators tools for remedial/basic skill instruction

for academics and PBS• Create time for their involvement, e.g., no bus or

hallway duty, schedule team meetings during prep, etc.• For every 1 new task/initiative added, take 2 away.

and above all . . .

Windram, 2009

Show them the

Windram, 2009

Implementation integrity is essential

Windram, 2009

A closing thought . . .

“We have to teach the children we have;

Not the children we used to have

Not the children we want to have

Not the children we dream to have”- Woodrow Wilson

Windram, 2009

Facilitation

Windram, 2009

Meeting facilitation - another role for school psychologists

• Building RtI team

• Grade level teaming

Windram, 2009

PurposeGrade Level Data Review, Analysis,

and Intervention Planning

Define Tier Cut-Off Scores

& Review Triangle

Data

Group Students According to Tiers & Needs

Review Interventions

& Match to Students’

Needs

Review Resources &

Match to Interventions

Create Updated Intervention

Plan for Each Tier

Grade Level Meetings

Courtesy of D204Courtesy of D204

Plan

Implementation

Windram, 2009

Building RtI teams

• The problem solving process needs nurturing

• You can use agenda or forms to guide the process

• Well-oiled teams may not need either after working together and solving problems

Windram, 2009

Clearly defined roles of team members

Windram, 2009

Think, Pair, Share

What are qualities of good meeting facilitators?

Windram, 2009

Facilitation “Quiz”

Windram, 2009

Agendas

Windram, 2009

Problem Solving

• As a school psych you can be very instrumental in – developing a well-defined problem

identification statement – as well as helping teams through problem

analysis and generating relevant hypotheses for developing a plan

Windram, 2009

Student: ____________________________________________ Date Form Completed: ____________________________________

St e p 3: Ind icate selecte d hypo t hesi s (cir cle or bold type ). Selecte d hypo t hesi s mu st ha ve conve r gen t da t a to suppor t inc ludi n g qua n titat ive da t a.

S tep 1: Lis t al l h ypothes is regar d in g caus e or func t ion of pri oritized probl em:

S tep 2: Lis t al l rele van t dat a t o suppo r t or refute ea ch hypo t hesi s lis ted

HYPOTHESES

R REVIEW

I INTERVIEW

O OBSERVE

T TEST

I

INSTRUCTION

1.

2.

3.

Instructional approaches, pacing, dif ficulty, class schedule, attendance, lesson plans

Expectations, alignment of instruction and curriculum, preferred practices, teachers philosophical orientation

Effective teaching practice, evidence of teacher expectations, modification of materials, classroom routines and behavior management

Aggregated peer performance on class assessments, class standing on district or statewide assessments, Checklists and questionnaires.

C

CURRICULUM

1.

2.

3.

Permanent student products, scope and sequence of lessons, Curriculum materials, books, worksheets, curriculum guides

District policy regarding adoption and use of curriculum materials, philosophical orientating of curriculum

Alignment of curriculum and materials, use of mandated curriculum, use of modified materials, assignments, assessments

Level of assignments and curriculum diff iculty

E

ENVIRONMENT

1.

2.

3.

Reports about school rules, class size, policy on disruptive behavior, peer’s work

Classroom routines, rules, behavior management plans, expectations

Physical environment, interaction patt erns, opportunity to learn, distractions,

Classroom environment scales (TIES), Aggregated peer performance on class assessments

L

LEARNER

1.

2.

3.

Health records, student work, teacher intervention records

Int erviewees perception of the problem, significance to student and peers, patt erns of behavior, current knowledge and skill

Present levels of performance, targets for instruction, nature and dimensions of target behavior, response to interventions, interaction patterns

CBM, classroom tests, norm-referenced tests, self-reports

Windram, 2009

Let’s do one together

Windram, 2009

BREAK