fulfilling the bellingham promise with response to ......1 fulfilling the bellingham promise with...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Fulfilling the Bellingham Promise
with Response to Intervention (RtI)
Recommendation of the Bellingham
RtI Advisory Group Submitted Spring 2015
Co-Leaders: Dawn Christiana, Mike Haberman, Stephanie Korn
Steering Committee: Trina Hall, Pam Pottle, Nicole Talley
Fulfilling the Bellingham Promise with
Response to Intervention (RtI)
2
Recommendation of the Bellingham RtI Advisory Group
Submitted Spring 2015
Table of Contents
Background
Acknowledgement
Rationale:
Recommendation
Overview
o Common Language: Defining and Describing RtI
o Website and Visual and Tool for RtI Procedures
o RtI Menu of Interventions
o Expansion of Student Growth Collaboration
o Small group advisories
Assessment
RtI
o People and job descriptions
o Professional Development
Calendar of Implementation
A School Model Fulfilling the Promise through RtI
Proposed 3-5 Year Financial Allocation to Implement RtI
Additional Considerations
Culture and Equity
RtI Beyond P-5 Literacy
RtI Link with the Bellingham Promise
3
Background: Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the RtI Advisory Committee for their
commitment, dedication, and passion for improving student learning in a systematic way. We
truly appreciate the time, hard work, deep thought, and critical examination of our current
practices and processes to support the range of learners in the Bellingham School District.
Steering Committee: Dawn Christiana, Teacher on Special Assignment
Michael Haberman, Director of Teaching and Learning Special Education
Trina Hall, Sunnyland Elementary Principal
Stephanie Korn, Director of Teaching and Learning Title I
Pam Pottle, Teacher on Special Assignment
Nicole Talley, Silver Beach Elementary Principal
Additional Focus Groups: -Literacy Intervention Teachers -Elementary Principals -Dyslexia Book Study Group -Elementary Teachers -Instructional Assistants
4
Rationale:
Implementation of a common literacy resource and strengthening core instruction
has been a focus, but students are still not demonstrating growth in ways that are
closing our achievement gap.
These slides represent the data compiled from the state Achievement Index with a
scale of ten (10.0=Highest level of growth and 1.0=lowest). Shaded in red shows
Title school growth and the right slide shows all elementary plotted by growth and
achievement.
5
As a system we continue to hover in the 70-80% passing rate in reading. Without
a systematic approach to providing students with support, this trend will continue.
In support of equity and struggling
readers at Non-Title Schools we
added .4 LAP FTE to each
elementary school during the 2013-
2014 school year, however without
a systematic approach, the impact is
limited. During the 2013-2014
school year 70.4% of students
receiving intervention support
demonstrated a year or less than a
year’s growth even with the added
intervention support. 29.6% of
students receiving intervention
demonstrated the expected
accelerated growth.
6
Overview of the Recommendation from the RtI Advisory Committee:
We collectively recommend that the Bellingham Public Schools implement a
district-wide RtI process focused on P-5 Literacy and expanding to 6-12 literacy,
K-12 behavior, K-12 math. The elements we recommend include:
Common Language: Adopt specific definitions and descriptions of the tiers
of support aligning Response to Intervention vocabulary supporting common
understandings.
Website, Visual and Tools: Create and launch a website for teacher teams
and families to understand the district RtI process and how their child is
supported and/or enriched. Include a “diamond” visual of the RtI
philosophy for Bellingham School District and link specific tools.
RtI Menu of Interventions: Continue strengthening core instruction in all
classrooms K-5. Identify specific intervention approaches for classroom
teachers (Tier II) and interventionists (Tier II and Tier III) and include in a
“menu” for teachers to select from.
Expansion of Student Growth Collaboration: Increase the
implementation of Student Growth Collaboration to include all elementary
schools and support facilitation by the intervention team and principal.
Small group advisories: Continue developing the RtI model with two small
groups meeting throughout the 2015-2016 school year: Assessment
Advisory and an on-going RtI Advisory.
People and job descriptions: Increase Library Media Specialist time by .2
for specific instruction in assistive technology. Director dedicated to RtI
alignment across programs.
Professional Development: Implement professional development in
understanding diverse learners (Students with dyslexia, Highly Capable
learners, English Language Learners and other identified areas)
7
Common Language Defining and Describing RtI Following a review of many different resources, collaboration and revisions, the following definitions and key components
are recommended as the common language to develop common understandings of RtI in the Bellingham School District.
Scientific/Evidence Based: Definition: Strategies, processes, curricula that are based on research that supports improved student learning.
Tier I: Core Instruction
Tier II: Strategic Intervention *Concerned needs added support
Tier III: Intensive Intervention *Highest level of concern
Definition: Tier I provides research
based instruction aligned to the
instructional framework of teaching
and learning for all students. This high
quality core instruction includes
differentiated student support driven
by ongoing evaluated assessment
results.
Definition: Tier II is supplemental
small group instruction aligned to core
and targeted to a specific need for
students who have not responded with
adequate growth in Tier I instruction.
Definition: Tier III provides rigorous
individualized intervention for students who
have not responded with adequate growth
in Tier I and Tier II interventions. Tier III
provides students with the greatest levels of
intervention frequency, intensity and
duration in order for them to access the core
curriculum.
Key Components: Group Size: ALL (Whole class, small
group,1:1)
Frequency: Daily and regularly for small
group and 1:1 as determined by assessment.
Duration: 3-6 week focused units of study,
flexible small group and 1:1, consistently
throughout the year
Instruction delivered by: Certificated teacher
Parent Communication: Formal and informal
(Parent Communication Menu-to be
developed)
Key Components: Group Size: 3-5 students
Frequency: 10-30 minutes 2-5x per week
Duration: 3-6 week minimum to test
effectiveness of intervention
Instruction delivered by: classroom teacher
or other teacher or specialist
Parent Communication:
Conversations with the teacher
Letter to describe intervention, decision
process, etc.
Key Components: Group Size: 1-3 students
Frequency: 30+ minutes up to 5x per week
Duration: 6-8 week minimum to test effectiveness
of intervention
Instruction delivered by: Specialists or designed
and monitored by specialists
Parent Communication:
Progress, intervention and home support is
communicated by specialist and/or classroom
teacher.
8
Systematic Assessment Definition (What): Systematic assessment begins with the use of a universal screener administered during specific scheduled intervals and/or
point of entry which leads to more comprehensive, diagnostic assessment for students not making adequate progress. The data collected is used
to determine next steps.
Key Components:
Universal Screen Diagnostic Progress Monitoring
Definition Assessment used to
identify the
students who are at
risk for learning
difficulties.
Assessment designed to
identify the causes of
specific student areas of
growth, with intent to guide
or modify instruction or to
design differentiated
instruction or supplemental
interventions.
Using intentionally selected tools at regular intervals to determine
how well a student is responding to instruction
Group Size All students Fall
1:1 Often 1:1 (tool dependent)
Frequency Fall, winter, spring As needed Tier I: Regular and on-going formative assessment/classroom
progress monitoring is a key component of differentiated core
instruction. Universal screen is a component of the progress
monitoring in Tier I.
Tier II: Primary reading level=every 3 weeks, Intermediate reading
level=every 6 weeks
Tier III: Determined based on student needs and area of focus
Duration Annually Specified by the tool Student is monitored until team determines student is proficient and
able to fully access core instruction without added Tier II, Tier III
Delivered by Classroom teacher
and/or support
Certificated teachers Teacher teaching the student monitors their progress
Communication
with Parents
Universal RtI communications with all families prior to Fall screening.
Data in Skyward and accessible K-12
Individualized RtI Entry/Exit, progress monitoring or Tier changes (celebrations and/or concerns)
Instructional plans and goals
10
Response to Intervention: High Expectations for All
Advanced and HCP Learners Above Expectations:
Confirm participation in differentiated core instruction and:
Determine best Tier II approach and/or resource.
Below Expectations Confirm participation in differentiated core instruction and:
Diagnose reading difficulty
Determine best Tier II approach and/or resource.
Tier I: Differentiated Core Instruction and Universal Screen 85-90% of students
Universal Screening Assessment Fall and upon entry
At or Above Expectations: Continue w/differentiated core instruction.
Parent communication Select appropriate intervention from “menu” of recommended Tier II approaches/resources.
Parent communication Select appropriate intervention from “menu” of recommended Tier II approaches/ resources.
See Tier II: Strategic Intervention 5-15% of students
All students monitored Winter and Spring K=K-Screen, Phonological Awareness and BAS 1=BAS
Title I Schools Non-Title Schools
2=BAS 3=BAS Fall ALL 3-5th=SRI Fall, Winter, Spring BAS only if not at standard in Fall
2=BAS (only NYAS winter) 3-5th=BAS only if not at standard
11
Tier II: Strategic Intervention 5-15% of students
Step 2: Monitor progress toward goal regularly (based on approach or resource in use.) *Parent communication w/progress
Step 1: Implement approach in addition to core instruction.
Adequate Progress: Continue intervention until established goal is met.
Insufficient Progress:
Extending Learner= Academic rigor is not evident Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach *Adjust intervention before considering Tier III.
Struggling Learner = Achievement gap is not closing. Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach/resource. *Adjust intervention before considering Tier III.
See Tier III: Intensive Intervention 1-5% of students
12
Tier III: Intensive Intervention 1-5% of students
Step 1: Parent communication Select appropriate intervention from “menu” of recommended approaches/resources.
Step 2: Implement approach in addition to, in rare instances in place of, core instruction and Tier II intervention as deemed appropriate for the student.
Step 3: Maintain intervention for at least 6 weeks and/or until student is demonstrating sufficient skills to be successful with Tier I or both Tier I and Tier II.
*Following implementation and documentation of multiple intervention attempts (Tier II and Tier III) and on-going concerns, Special Education referral might
be a consideration.
Adequate Progress: Continue intervention until established goal is met.
Step 4: Monitor progress toward proficiency based on approach or resource in use. *Parent communication w/progress
Insufficient Progress:
Struggling Learner = Achievement gap is not closing. Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach/resource. *Adjust intervention before considering SPED Referral.
Extending Learner= Academic rigor is not evident Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach
13
Expansion and Refinement of Student Growth Collaboration (SGC)
Student Growth Collaboration Proposal for 2015-2016
Proposal:
Develop facilitation teams to host SGC’s at all schools. (Possibly LIT, SPED, ELL or TOSA’s)
Train teams with leadership skills, data preparation and review (Pre Session Options)
All schools host SGC’s in the same window of time aligning the progress monitoring across the
system and allowing data to be collected more systematically
Review the data from across the district for trends or patterns in student achievement and in
teacher areas of need (Data Review) (Post Session Options)
Time and Sub Release
Ideally teams would be released for a half day of preparation prior to each SGC and a half day for
review following each SGC.
Per school=Title, SPED, ELL (sub release 3x14)
TOSA’s and one school based member=(sub release 1x14)
SGC Windows:
Prep Session Options
One half day session
SGC Window *includes one early
release date and
Purple Friday
Data Review
One half day session
Purple Friday w/in Window *Included to support
administrators wanting to use
building time for this work.
October 5-7th October 8
th-16
th October 19-21
st October 9
th
November 30th-Dec. 2
nd December 3
rd-11
th December 14, 15, 16 December 11
th
February 8-10th February 11
th-19
th February 22-24
th February 12
th
April 11th-13
th April 14
th-22
nd April 25-27
th No Purple Friday in April
May 31st or June 1
st June 2
nd-10
th June 13 or 14
th June 10
th
Additional Ideas:
Three SGC’s required in all schools and five in those that opt in for the additional two
Title schools do both Math and Literacy
SGC specifically designed for principals and a team they bring to the district office for a half day
look at their whole school Fall, Winter and Spring.
SGC+ with focus on follow-up support meeting teacher’s individual or collective instructional
needs
Small group advisories: Convene RtI Representative Team
Assessment Team Purpose: To refine the PK-5 Literacy Assessments with ELL, HCP, Title/LAP- RtI in mind
Refine assessment schedule with universal screening for K-5 Fall, Winter, Spring
Review current phonological awareness screen being used in Kindergarten and other
potential options to determine critical screen.
Consider HCP testing alignment and protocols within RtI
Determine assessment tools that could refine our approach (diagnostic, progress
monitoring, etc.)
Determine specific data needs for teachers, principals, directors and necessary personnel
14
Small group advisories (continued):
RtI Advisory Group (continued and revised) Purpose: To strengthen intervention and extension approaches and resources across the district
Inventory the CST/Problem Solving processes across the elementary schools to support
the decision making model for RtI and PBIS
Research and recommend Tier II approaches and strategies for classroom teachers and
interventionists
Research and recommend Tier III approaches and strategies for interventionists
Monitor the RtI implementation across elementary schools
Develop and implement parent communication and internal data tracking system
People and job descriptions
Library Media Specialist: Increase LMS time by .2 with a specific focus on supporting students
with assistive technology and teachers with the professional development/support to use and
implement assistive technology.
Develop a .5 position dedicated to the Multi-Tiered System of Support beginning with the K-5
literacy assessment system and moving toward math and behavior. The role would include
collecting, organizing and managing progress monitoring and summative assessment data for
regular and on-going review of student growth, achievement and program effectiveness. The
role would include monitoring the data for validity, completion and distribution. Each teacher
and school would be provided data in a variety of formats for collaborative review and
thoughtful development of data literacy skills for all staff.
Additional expectations include:
- Developing a thorough understanding of current data systems capabilities and sharing that
knowledge with teachers and administrators.
- Identifying and developing methods for efficient data gathering within the system. (Refer and
consider blending with 2014-2015 Above Baseline request from Brian Rick.)
Instructional Assistant hired to support intervention across the district based on needs.
Professional Development Develop and implement a plan for supporting teachers with differentiated instruction and
the specific needs of students with Dyslexia, Highly Capable, ELL and more)
Integrate into PLC’s whenever possible developing common understandings of RtI as the
Promise and specific vocabulary, approaches and systems (Principals and Classroom
Teachers)
Combine Literacy Intervention Specialists, ELL Specialists and Special Education
teachers for collective professional development refining understandings of RtI. (District
Purple Fridays)
Develop strand options for choice professional development days with a focus on
Dyslexia, Highly Capable Learning, Differentiation in a reading and writing workshop.
Para-educator thread to support participation in understanding RtI and their role.
(Thursday early release time)
A School Model Fulfilling the Promise through RtI
15
In three to five years the implementation of RtI would likely result in schools
that fulfill the Promise for all students, staff and families. An ideal model:
Differentiated core instruction would meet the needs
of 80-85% of the students in the classroom.
Calendar of Implementation
RtI would be in place in both literacy
and math intentionally using SGC’s and
the recommended flow map, decision-
making model, menu of interventions,
professional development to meet the
diverse needs of students and strong
communication with families.
PBIS or similar school-wide
approach for behavior
expectations would be in place to
maximize learning time and a
focus on whole child instruction
matching each developmental
stage.
All classroom teachers would have regular and on-going professional support in the form of a Principal as an
instructional leader and interventionist teams (LIT, SPED, ELL, Psych) with a majority of their time allocated
to providing in-class support (team teaching, coaching, planning) and student support.
Non-Title Schools
RtI Team:
Smallest schools=1.0 “interventionist” for
ELL/Literacy and 1.0 SPED teacher.
Larger schools=
1.0 Literacy Intervention teachers w/.5 direct
student intervention and .5 in class support
1-2.0 SPED FTE based on school size
1.0 ELL FTE (based on need)
Title Schools RtI Team:
Reduce class size K-2 less than 20; 3-5 less than 25
Maintain current Literacy Intervention allocation,
shift job descriptions to .5-.75 core classroom
support and remaining time for direct student
intervention.
1-2.0 SPED FTE based on school size
1.0 ELL Specialists with focus on in-class support
Additionally:
LMS would be allocated .2 to specifically support assistive technology for all students. (Special attention to monitor students with 504/IEP’s noting accommodations)
Psychologists would support 2 schools (.5 at each) for screening, diagnostic & consultation for instruction.
The role of SLP and OT would include more time for collaboration and instruction.
Additional Instructional Assistants would be trained in Barton reading providing specialized support for students identified with Dyslexic tendencies (not assigned to a specific school)
Additional Literacy support could be itinerant based on the SGC data every 6-8 weeks.
Problem solving teams would be in place to support staff in identifying approaches to meet student learning needs across the tiers. (Not MDT)
16
Proposed 3-5 Year Financial Allocation to Implement RtI:
Year 1: 2015-2016 Years 2-3: 2016-2018 Years 4-5: 2018-2020
Website/Interactive Tool: Proposed Expense: Potentially free with time of current IT/communications department and use of current platform.
*Refinement of the tools to include behavior supports and potentially math resources. *New platform may be necessary
SGC Refinement and Expansion 2014-2015 Budget Allocation: Title II: LAP: Proposed Expense: 14 schools with teams of 3-4 teachers released for 10 half days=$42,000.00
*Add CST or problem solving teams at all schools to support RtI academics and behavior outside of MDT process. *Potentially add Math SGC? *Support process 6-12 by school
Maintain and support
SGC Implementation at the Building Level 5x per year: Model A=4 roving subs at all 14 schools=$8400 per round Total $42,000.00 per year Model B=6 roving subs at all 14 schools=$12,600 per round Total $63,000.00 per year *Ideally schools would plan a model that matches their building needs and culture
SGC Implementation at the Building Level K-8 5x per year: Elementary=maintain from 2015-2016 school year Middle Level=Teams (grade band or content) of 8 released with roving subs 4 x per year (quarterly)=$2400 per school Total $9,600.00
Maintain and support
“Ideal School Staffing” *If possible reducing class size at Title Schools. Decrease class size at Title I schools to less than 20 in K-2 and less than 25 in 3rd-5th
Add intervention support increasing non-title school to 1.0 (ELL and LAP) Title Schools and Northern Heights (based on ELL population) =1.0 FTE ELL Specialist
*Funding varied based on school projections, financials can be made available if
necessary
17
Additional Human Capital Increase LMS positions .2 ($18,800) x 14 schools= Total $263,000.00
Assessment Specialist Total $50,000.00
Instructional Assistant Support used as needs are identified across the system (i.e. Barton Reading for students identified with Dyslexic tendencies)=180 days x 2 hours per day=360 total hours at $21.32 Total $8,000.00
*May need increase in this support for math
Materials (Tier I, II, III as determined by data review and research) Review of current resources May identify necessary intervention supports
for literacy and/or math
18
Fulfilling the Promise through RtI (MTSS)
Recommendation Timeline
Date Step or Task in the Process
May 21st 2015 Elementary Principal Level Meeting input regarding
flow map, menu and SGC plan
By May 29th 2015 Submit Recommendation to Dr. Baker
June 2015 Communication: Share executive team decision with Advisory,
administrators and specific intervention teachers
Spring/
Summer 2015
Collaboratively develop structure for SGC (Student Growth Collaboration)
developing the capacity of building level teams and DT&L
Spring/
Summer 2015
Develop an assessment team structure to support immediate data collection
using BAS (Cadre to assess students)
2015-2016
Begin in the fall
Convene RtI Representative Teams: (See page 14 for more complete explanation)
Assessment Team
Purpose: To refine the PK-5 Literacy Assessments
RtI Advisory Group (continued and revised)
Purpose: To strengthen intervention and extension approaches and resources
across the district
RtI Advisory for 6-12 Literacy
RtI Advisory for K-12 Behavior (PBIS- possible UW link)
2015-2016 Professional Development: Professional Development
Develop and implement a plan for supporting teachers with differentiated
instruction and the specific needs of students with Dyslexia, Highly Capable,
ELL and more)
Integrate into PLC’s whenever possible developing common understandings of
RtI as the Promise and specific vocabulary, approaches and systems (Principals
and Classroom Teachers)
Combine Literacy Intervention Specialists, ELL Specialists and Special
Education teachers for collective professional development refining
understandings of RtI. (District Purple Fridays)
Develop strand options for choice professional development days with a focus
on Dyslexia, Highly Capable Literacy Learning, Differentiation in a reading and
writing workshop.
Para-educator thread to support participation in understanding RtI and their role.
(Thursday early release time)
19
2015-2016 Student Growth Collaboration:
Implement SGC’s with administrator choice in method of
participation:
o School-Based facilitation five times per year with capacity
building support pre and post each SGC (See Student Growth
Collaboration Proposal 2015-2016)
o Principal and Leadership Team professional development at
district-facilitated SGC sessions (Fall, winter, spring)
2016-2017
Year 2
Form Advisory Group for Math RtI
2017-2018
Year 3
Full implementation of RtI, PBIS and Math with strategic support
*Calendar will be refined based on the Professional Development Model for
2015-2016
Additional Considerations
Culture and Equity
o Begin analyzing program data for equity and disproportionate
representation of students of color and socioeconomic status.
RtI Beyond P-5 Literacy
o 2015-2016 Begin 6-12 Literacy and K-12 Behavior study and
recommendation
o 2016-2017 Begin math K=12 study and recommendation
20
Our work defining RtI will help us fulfill the Bellingham Promise:
An RtI system honors each
child with supports to help
him/her be successful!
An RtI system brings
classroom teachers,
specialists and parents
together as a team.
Students achieve at high
levels when we identify
their specific needs for
intervention or extension.
21
This year we will focus our work on Preschool-5th
grade literacy and our work will lay the
foundation for future RtI components.
Implementation of RtI will
provide equity for all
students meeting them
where they are and
supporting or extending
them in differentiated ways.
RtI encompasses all five of the Key Strategies
of our Bellingham Promise.
RtI ensures systematic and
equitable interventions
across all schools.
RtI assures early identification of
needs and focused interventions
or extensions for all learners.