the opi montana rti pilot project final-1pluk.org/training/2_opi_mt_rti_pilot_project.pdf · 2012....

The OPI Montana RTI Pilot Project:The OPI Montana RTI Pilot Project:

Where We’ve Been andWhere We ve Been and What We’ve Accomplished

Margaret Beebe‐Frankenberger, Ph.D.The University of Montana

Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

Welcome and IntroductionsWelcome and Introductions


Presentation ObjectivesPresentation Objectives

• Understand the OPI Montana RTI Pilot ProjectUnderstand the OPI Montana RTI Pilot Project philosophy, process, and progress

• Gain a deeper understanding and knowledge• Gain a deeper understanding and knowledge of the RTI process.

D l i i h i h f• Develop insight into the extent of your school(s) readiness for RTI

• Identify your staff professional development needs for the implementation process.


Agenda

• Meet the OPI RTI Pilot Project TEAM• Objectives and Process of the Pilot Projectj j• Questions• Overview and Essential Components of RTI

Q ti• Questions• BREAK• How the RTI process implementation developed at each pilot

school• Questions• BREAKBREAK• What do your colleagues say about RTI? (45 min video)• How to develop your plan to implement RTI

R di h kli t d ?– Readiness checklist – are you ready?– Identifying professional development needs

– QuestionsBeebe‐Frankenberger 2007

The Montana RTI Pil t P j tPilot Project

Sponsored by

The State of Montana, Office of Public Instruction,Linda McCulloch, Superintendent

In Collaboration with

Gardiner School, Gardiner

Jefferson Elementary, Glendive

Roosevelt Elementary, Great Fallsy,

K. William Harvey Elementary, Ronan

The University of MontanaBeebe‐Frankenberger 2007

h “ ”?Who Are “We”?

• The State of Montana – 4th largest state (land)

• Population 954,000

• School enrollment 2005‐2006 = 145,416School enrollment 2005 2006 145,416

• 73.6% of schools are in rural and frontier areas (rural=<2,500 pop towns; frontier = <6 people per sq mile)

• 42.3% of all children attend rural schools

• Biggest Child/Youth Issue = PovertyBiggest Child/Youth Issue = Poverty

• Free/reduced lunch (2005‐2006) = 34.6%

Who Are “We”?Who Are We ?

• The Montana RTI Pilot ProjectF nded b– Funded by:

• State of Montana, Office of Public Instruction (OPI), Early Intervening and School Improvement Grants

– Trainer/Consultant: • Margaret Beebe‐Frankenberger, Ph.D. The University of Montana; Director School Psychologyy ; y gy

– In collaboration with 4 Montana Elementary Schools:• Submitted applications to OPI• E al ated and selected b OPI for leadership prior• Evaluated and selected by OPI for leadership, prior successes, regional representation, and motivation

Gardiner SchoolGardinerPopulation: 851

• RTI Coaches• Principal:– Ken Ballagh

• Educ. Coop Director

• RTI Coaches– Schalene Darr Gr 3 teacher

– Verne Beffert

• K‐6

– Kristie Pierce School Psychologist

• 109 Students• 12.4% F/R Lunch• Not eligible Title I

– Debbie Ferris, Rural COOP Co‐Director

g


Jefferson ElementaryGlendiveGlendive

Population: 4,729

• PrincipalDon Idso

• Sandy Gray Eagle, SPED Director & School Psychologist

– Don Idso

• Superintendent– Jim Germann

• RTI Coaches

– Tammy Milne, 4th gr teacher

• K‐4

• 211 Students

– Marcy Adams, SPED Teacher

• RTI team members:

– Amy Ree, 1st gr teacher• 27.4% F/R Lunch

• Targeted Title 1– Greg Hunt, Counselor

– JoAnn Hunt, Title I Teacher

– Nancy Crisafulli SPED TeacjerNancy Crisafulli, SPED Teacjer


K. William Harvey ElementaryRonan

Population: 1,812

• RTI Lead• Principal:

– Jim Gillhouse

RTI Lead– Joan Graham, SPED Director

• RTI Coaches• PK‐5• 379 Students• 56 0% F/R Lunch

RTI Coaches– Erin Stephen, SPED teacher– Colleen Torgison, teacher

Sheila Hoback teacher• 56.0% F/R Lunch• School‐wide Title 1

– Sheila Hoback, teacher– Robyn Schock, Reading Specialist– Amy Griffin, School Counselor


Roosevelt ElementaryGreat Falls

Population: 56,690

• RTI CoachesSusan Rader Intervention Specialist

• Principal (thru Spring 2007)– Ruth Uecker

• Incoming Principal (Fall 2007)

– Susan Rader, Intervention Specialist

– Cheryl Gesvold, teacher

• RTI Team Members• Incoming Principal (Fall 2007)– Rhonda Zobrak

• SPED Director– Deb Yerkes

– Ryan Hart, teacher

– Katy Nichols, School Psychologist

– Shannon Guilfoyle Intervention– Deb Yerkes

• K‐6

• 349 Students

% / h

Shannon Guilfoyle, Intervention Specialist

– Jackie Carlson, School Psychologist

• 46.4% F/R Lunch

• Schoolwide Title IBeebe‐Frankenberger 2007

The State of MontanaOffi f P bli I iOffice of Public Instruction

• Linda McCullough– State Superintendent

• Bob Runkel, – State Director Special Educationp

• Susan Bailey‐Anderson– Director CSPD MBI and more– Director, CSPD, MBI, and more

• Nikki Sandve– Coordinator Project Stride


The University of Montana Missoula

• University Trainer/Consultants:• University Trainer/Consultants:

• Margaret Beebe‐Frankenberger, Ph.D.Di t S h l P h l– Director, School Psychology

• Greg Machek, Ph.D. NCSP

J N l Ph D NCSP• Jason Nelson, Ph.D. NCSP

• Camille BarracloughPh D G d t St d t A i t t– Ph.D. Graduate Student Assistant

and Monte……..Go Griz!Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

Montana RTI Project Philosophyj p y

• All educators for all children• RTI is a specific structured process under the umbrella of an “early intervening” approach within the general education classroomclassroom.

• RTI processes should be developed according to local autonomous decisions based on culture, resources, and needs.– There are BASIC and essential, non‐negotiable components of the RTI process

– There are many elements around those basic components that should be decided locally.

• RTI in Montana will be based upon the collective grassrootsRTI in Montana will be based upon the collective grassroots efforts of public schoolsBeebe‐Frankenberger 2007

3‐Year Objectives of Project3 Year Objectives of Project• Conduct 3 year RTI Implementation

– Evaluate outcomes, efficacy, and efficiency

– Define administrative “leadership” roles in RTI

D l ti bl RTI d– Develop non‐negotiable RTI procedures

– Identify unique procedures based upon local decisions, culture, and resources, ,

– Develop best practice guidelines

– Develop state training plan

– Develop state procedures and forms


Questions???????Questions???????


What is RTI?What is RTI?

The Educational Process:

All Educators for All StudentsAll Educators for All Students

M. Beebe‐Frankenberger 2006

The RTI ProcessThe RTI Process• Goal of RTI:

P iti t f ll hild / th– Positive outcomes for all children/youth

• Mission of RTI:– Proactive prevention and intervention activities

– Provides continuum of instructional supports

– All educators responsible for all children

– Focus on positive outcomes– Focus on positive outcomes

– Engage students and their families in the educational process

• Key:– Problem Solving approach to identified concerns

– Evidence‐based curriculum, interventions, and methods

– Ongoing screening and progress monitoring


Ongoing screening and progress monitoring

What is “RTI”?

• RTI is an educational process– Continuous proactive screening – looking for the “learning enabled”

(Till 2005)(Tilly, 2005)

– System of instructional supports along a continuum– Measure student rate/strength of response to instruction– School team response to poor RTI = intervention via increasedSchool team response to poor RTI = intervention via increased

instructional supports

• Goal of RTI:f ll h ld / h– Positive outcomes for all children/youth

• Mission of RTI:– Proactive prevention and intervention activitiesp– Provide continuum of instructional supports– All educators responsible for all children– Engage students and families in the educational process


RTI is based on 2 Big Ideas……

Big Idea # 1: Degree of Unresponsiveness Determines Intensity of Intervention

High

(Gresham, 2002)

High

Hi h

M. Beebe‐Frankenberger 2006 Degree of Unresponsiveness to InterventionLow High

Big Idea #2: Multi Level Three‐Tiered Model

Tertiary Prevention:

~5%

Specialized Individualized Systems for students at High‐Risk Academic/Behavior failure

15%P i

Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for St dents At Risk for Academic~15%Primary

Prevention:School/ Classroom Wide

Students At‐Risk for Academic or Behavior failure

~80%Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings


Tim Lewis, Missouri PBS Initiative

Big Ideas 1 + 2 =Response to Instruction (RTI) Process

+

Response to Instruction (RTI) Process

• PROS– Continuous support– No longer “wait to fail”Formal Evaluation of Disability Impacting Learning

Special Education Support

No longer wait to fail– Early identification– Preventative– LRELRE

• CONS– Fiscal responsibility

H l h i t ?– How long, how intense?– Teaching time & resources

• testingi t ti


• interventionInstructional Intensity Increases

What RTI Is and Is NotWhat RTI Is and Is Not

• RTI is……… • RTI is not…….• An initiative that supports

general education school improvement goals

• A stand alone special education initiative

• Intended to help as many students as possible meet proficiency standards without special education

• A means for just getting more students into special education.

special education• A method to unify general and

special education in order to benefit students through

• A method for just increasing or decreasing special education numbers

greater continuity of services• Focused primarily on effective

instruction to enhance student growth

• Focused primarily on disability determination and documented through a checklistgrowth through a checklist


3 Interrelated Elements of RTI3 Interrelated Elements of RTI

• Evidence‐Based InstructionEvidence Based Instruction

• Assessment sensitive to instruction effects

d i i ki• Data‐Based Decision Making

d b dEvidence‐based Instruction

Data‐based Decisions

Assessment sensitive to instruction effects


effects

The Essential Components of RTIThe Essential Components of RTI

• The RTI Process is comprised of basic and essential components without which the process would not be viablewhich the process would not be viable.

• Many local decisions based upon local culture, needs, and resources need to be made around each component as RTI is planned and implemented.

• A fully implemented and sustainable RTI process uses the following y p p gcomponents: – Evidence‐based curriculum and interventions– Effective instruction

bl l i d d b d d i i ki– Problem solving and data‐based decision making– Ongoing assessment– Collaborative teams

Procedural fidelity checks– Procedural fidelity checks

• These components provide the basis for accountability in regard to providing the maximum opportunity for students to fully achieve success.p g pp y y


What Local Decisions Need to Be Made?

• Based upon the local culture, resources, talents, and needs, you create the RTI Process that is unique to YOUR school:

– Evidence‐based curriculum and interventions – Which ones?

– Effective instruction– Teaching skill and local resources (eg. Community involvement, tutoring

groups, etc.)

– Problem solving and data‐based decision makingWh i Y f l d h i h hi b d d?– What is Your pre‐referral process now and how might this be adapted?

– Ongoing assessment• Which screening, benchmarking, diagnostic, outcome and informal assessments?

C ll b i– Collaborative teams– How many teams, team structure, meeting times, etc.

– Procedural fidelity checks– Who will do these, what will you check, what format, what forms?


Critical Features of a Strong RTI ProcessCritical Features of a Strong RTI Process

• Use all available resources to teach all students.

• Use scientific, evidence‐based instruction and interventions.

• Use a multi‐tier model of service deliveryUse a multi tier model of service delivery

• Make data‐based decisions

C d t h l id i l i• Conduct school‐wide, universal screening

• Monitor student performance

• Monitor progress frequently.Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

The RTI Process: A System that Supports Academic and Behavioral Success

AnyCurriculum

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-basedHi h I t it

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment based

Area

5-10% 5-10%

•High Intensity•Of longer duration

•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiencyg y

•Rapid responseg y

•Rapid response

Stu

d80-90% 80-90%Core Instructional Program

•All students•Preventive, proactive

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

den

ts

The RTI Process: A System of I t ti l S t GUIDED b A t D tInstructional Supports GUIDED by Assessment Data

IEP 5%

St t i

Intensive 5%

10%

The School Level Goal

Strategic 10%

Basic‐Core80%

Source: Wayne Callender, Addressing the System, 2005Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

The Essential Components: 2 X 2 Foci in RTI Process2 X 2 Foci in RTI ProcessCurriculum & Instruction

Ongoing AssessmentInstruction Assessment

School •Strong research based C&I in place•Uninterrupted instructional

•School wide screening 3 times yearly (F,W,S):•Evaluate C&I effectiveness

Level•Uninterrupted instructional time block across school•Instructional groups based on performance levels

•Evaluate C&I effectiveness•Identify “learning enabled” & “at risk” using data•Reorganize instructionalp •Reorganize instructional groups based on data

•Supplemental & Strategic C&I in place

•Progress monitoring measures in place and scheduled

Student Level

p•Additional Instructional time set and flexible (dosage)

paccording to intensity of C&I•Assess intact & needed skills•Assess additional factors•Systematic review of data to inform intervention


RTI Instructional Levels of SupportRTI Instructional Levels of Support

Intensive Level –

Intensive

Intensive Level Targeted Intervention related to student factors match skill

to instructionStrategic Level

Standard Protocol Instructional Response – Small Group, Skill

specificStrategic

specific

CORE

CORE LEVEL

CORE

Reading & Math CurriculumPositive Behavior Supports


Reading Programs in a Three‐Tier Model K ‐ 3

Core I t ti

Supplemental I t ti

Intensive I t tiInstruction Interventions Interventions

•Open Court •Ladders to Literacy – PA •Early Reading •Houghton Mifflin:

Nations’ Choice•Reading Mastery

•Road to the Code- PA•Phonemic Awareness in Young Children – PA

Intervention PA, P•Reading Mastery, PA, P, F, CR d W ll (K 1) PA P•SIPPS – P

•PALS – P•Lindamood-Bell – PA, P

•Read Well (K-1) PA, P, F, C, V•Waterford Levels – PA , P F C V (1-2)

KEY:

PA = Phonemic Awareness

•Read Naturally – F•Quick Reads – F

P , F, C, V (1 2)•Lindamood-Bell- PA, P•Wilson – PA, P

P = Phonics

F = Fluency

C = Comprehension

V = Vocabulary

Source: Wayne Callender “Addressing the System: (2005) Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

RTI Level Assessments: i ?How Are We Doing?

Intensive Level –Specific

Intensive

Intensive Level Specific assessment to determine skill deficits. Progress Monitoring with formative assessments:

Strategic LevelProgress Monitoring with

formative assessments: DIBELS, CBM

Strategic

DIBELS, CBM Every 1‐2 weeks.

CBM 1 X per mth.

CORE

CORE LEVEL –

CORE

Schoolwide Screening for At‐Risk: “Benchmark Assessment”

– 3 X yearBeebe‐Frankenberger 2007

The Essential Pieces: 2 X 2 Foci in RTI Social Behavioral Process

Core MBI/PBIS & Interventions

Ongoing Assessment

School Level

•Schoolwide MBI/PBIS supports for positive climate in place

•Behavioral expectations & consequences explicitly taught

•School wide screening (2 X year)•Other systematic screening measures (ODR’s, attendance, etc.)

• Systematically identify “at risk” inLevel consequences explicitly taught

•Behavioral rewards in place. • Systematically identify at risk in

need for Tier 2 group and Tier 3

interventions

•Identify “socially enabled” & “at risk”•Evaluate MBI/PBIS effectiveness: SET and other relevant measures (again, ODR’s, Attendance, etc.)

A i t f t h P it i i

Student L l

•Assistance for teachers•Tier 2 groups in place•Tier 3 mechanism for FBA/BIPs in place.

•Progress monitoring measures in place and scheduled according to intervention type.

•Assess intact, needed skills, additional Level •Exit and transition plans

•Additional intervention time and strategies available.

factors

•Exit criteria•Systematic review of data to inform intervention

RTI MBI/PBIS Levels of SupportRTI MBI/PBIS Levels of Support

Tier 3 ‐ Intensive Level –Intensive

Tier 3 Intensive Level Specific factors identified with FBA; develop/implement BIP

Tier 2 ‐ Strategic LevelTargeted Intervention‐ Small Group, Skill specific acquisition & fluencyStrategic

CORE

Tier 1 ‐ CORE LEVEL

CORE

Universal‐ SchoolwidePositive Behavior SupportsMontana Behavior Initiative

Prevention/Intervention in a Three‐Tier Social/Behavioral Model/

Core Prevention Activities

Strategic

Interventions

Intensive Interventions

•Positive School Climate (MBI/PBIS)

•Schoolwide:

•Group Skills‐based:• Social skills

• Friendship skills

•Individualized BIPs using local expectations,

• expectations

• problem behaviors

and consequences

Friendship skills

• Anger management

• Conflict resolution

D i

contingencies, ABA shaping techniques

and consequences

• supervision

• student engagement

• Depression

• Grief•Packaged interventions:

• e.g. “First Steps to• staff engagement

• effective classroom

behavior mgmnt

Success” (K‐1)

• “Copy Cat”

RTI Level Assessments: i ?How Are We Doing?

i i lIntensive

Tier 3 ‐ Intensive Level –Progress Monitor with relevant measures 2‐ 4 x per month

Tier 2 ‐ Strategic LevelProgress monitor with relevant

measures 1 x per monthStrategic

CORE

Tier 1 ‐ CORE LEVEL –

CORE

Schoolwide Screening for At‐Risk 2x per Year (SSBD); SET Implementation;

Monthly review of Behavioral Markers

The Essence of RTI…..The Essence of RTI…..• Goal: Achieve Student and School Success

Id if /d fi h i i i• Identify/define the minimum expectation.– Academic (reading, math, written expression, etc.)

– Behavioral (can encompass behavioral referrals, attendance, etc.)

• Universal measure for present level of performance (PLOP).– System level (building/class)y ( g/ )

– Student level (individualized)

• If PLOP is less than Expectation, make a plan to intervene!If PLOP is less than Expectation, make a plan to intervene!

• Monitor progress toward meeting Expectation.

• Make decisions using progress monitoring data.Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

For A System Looks Like….For A System Looks Like….

ExpectationSchool PLOP Intervene to:

Tier 3ExpectationPLOP

5% - 7%12%

Intervene to:

Reduce by 7%

Tier 210% - 15%23% Reduce by 13%

Tier 2

80% 90% I b 20%

Tier 180%-90%65% Increase by 20%


For a Student Looks Like……For a Student Looks Like……• Aimline = expected/predicted rate of learning from

b li lyour baseline to your goal• Goal for Sam:• In 18 weeks when presented with random 2nd grade reading passages• In 18 weeks, when presented with random 2 grade reading passages,

Sam will read aloud at a rate of 73 wpm for 3 of 5 trials.

8018 week

80 70 60 50

BaselineAimline (goal line)

Expectation

Expectation50 40 30 20 10

Md=21 Intervention PeriodPLOP

10 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

How does RTI affect our educational system?y

C t ti f i t ti l t• Creates a continuum of instructional supports– Takes place across general and special education

• “Entitlement to Support for Learning” rather than• Entitlement to Support for Learning rather than “Eligibility by Disability”

• Uses resources formerly dedicated to “special• Uses resources formerly dedicated to special education”

• Increases the extent and quality of collaborationIncreases the extent and quality of collaboration among educators

• Early identification


Early identification

Systems ChangeSystems Change

• Change….it takes

F l

g– Leadership

– Planning

Collaboration“For every complex problem, there is a i l l ti

– Collaboration

– Hard work…smart working

– Courage

simple solution… that doesn’t work.”

– Time

And even with

(Mark Twain)

And, even with planning, change is often messy………


What Pilot Staff Said About Change, Fall 2005

• Some “barriers” to change, identified in the RTI Acceptability survey taken in November, 2005……..

• Time for training and implementation

• Lack of training and true understanding of the changes this process will t k t i l ttake to implement.

• Lack of resources for the staff to use to implement changes.

• Question the readiness of the staff for such extensive changes.

• Unwillingness to alter existing schedules and time for instruction

• getting teachers "sold" on the new process, having parents respond positively to having their child "identified"

• Any time you implement change, it impacts people and creates the ti th t th i t b i d t d k ith fperception that they are going to be required to do more work with few

or no additional resources. Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

More……..h id b h i llWhat Was Said About Change in Fall 2005

• Uncertainty as to what to do handle change well. • Change is always a difficult process• Getting all staff onboard with RtI

R li t f t ff th t ill id i t ti• Re‐alignment of staff that will or can provide interventions.• Recognition of the need for the program • Patience with the process.p• Our thinking of special education services as the last stop in the

intervention process.• getting parents to commit to their part of the process• getting parents to commit to their part of the process• none specific, there just always seems to be barriers

• Wise words……..and consistent with what we know to be the case about change


Leadership is EssentialLeadership is Essential

• Promotes commitment of staff to processp• Fosters collaboration among all educators• Provides fiscal and time resources

k dj i d il h d l f i i l bl k– Makes adjustments in daily schedules for instructional blocks– Provides substitutes for meetings– Earmarks funding for new materialsg

• Curriculum, interventions, assessments

• Arranges for professional development• Assesses procedural fidelity as part of professional• Assesses procedural fidelity as part of professional evaluations

• Lead the way…..consistency


The benefit of experience…….The benefit of experience…….

• Video – Panel Discussion by RTI Pilot ProjectVideo Panel Discussion by RTI Pilot Project

P i i l ’ ti f RTI ft th fi t– Principals’ perspectives of RTI after the first year of implementation (reading).


RTI Acceptability Survey:ll llFall 2005 vs. Fall 2006

F ll 2005 F ll 2006

4.5

5.0

Fall 2005 Fall 2006

3.0

3.5

4.0

2.0

2.5

Understand Acceptable Make decisions Willing to try Cost in Time Disadvantages Barriers

0 5

1.0

1.5

Understand Acceptable Make decisions Willing to try Cost in Time Disadvantages Barriers

0.0

0.5

Barriers to RTI ImplementationBarriers to RTI Implementation

• Time and MoneyTime and Money

• Lack of trained personnel for interventions

i d di• Misunderstandings

• Resistance to sharing students

• Resistance by parents

• Time to train peopleTime to train people• And…………TIME, TIME, TIME

The RTI Process: A System of I t ti l S t GUIDED b A t D tInstructional Supports GUIDED by Assessment Data

IEP 5%

St t i

Intensive 5%

10%

The School Level Goal

Strategic 10%

Basic‐Core80%

Source: Wayne Callender, Addressing the System, 2005Beebe‐Frankenberger 2007

Project TimelineProject Timeline• PHASE ONE• Kick‐Off, Fall 2005 for school leaders and RTI Coaches; school staff were surveyed online• RTI Training Overview, February 2006; plan for next steps for each school• Each school did a “Kick Off” for entire school to raise awareness of RTI process and implementation2005‐2006

Year 1

• Each school did a Kick‐Off for entire school to raise awareness of RTI process and implementation.• RTI Reading implementation for Fall 2006; develop next steps in RTI development; identify professional development needs; complete curriculum MAPS; parent and community involvement

2006‐2007 •Phase TwoYear 2

2007‐2008

Year 3•Phase Three


Project “First Steps” 2005‐2006Project First Steps 2005 2006

• Phase One, Preparation “Get Ready”:, p y• Kick‐Off meeting Fall 2005: Overview and meet state

teams• Pre implementation surveys of all staff in the 4 project• Pre‐implementation surveys of all staff in the 4 project

schools – online, anonymous– RTI Acceptability Survey

RTI Collaboration Survey– RTI Collaboration Survey– System readiness

• First Training Meeting February, 2006– RTI Reading Overview and Preparation– Mission Statement for School

• Complete Reading MAPS and schedulesp g


Mission StatementMission Statement

The mission of Jefferson Elementary School is to enhance the outcomes for reading for allenhance the outcomes for reading for all students grades K‐4. Implementation of the RTI process, data collection, and strategic problem solving will result in varying levels of intervention driven by the unique needs of d d l dindividual students.

All educators are responsible for all children.

“Bridging the Gaps”


Implementation Plan &i i h dTraining Method – Year 1

• “RTI Kick Off” Meeting with All School Teams and representatives, State officials & university trainers.

• Provide overviews of RTI process; identify site specific needs for essential components; systemizationessential components; systemization

• 2 Conjoint trainings• 1 on site training/consultation

• RTI Process Overview and Systems ChangeRTI Process Overview and Systems Change• Team Commitment – Mission Statement• Problem Solving Overview and Practice; Team formation• Develop Curriculum and Assessment MAPS – Reading (2)• RTI Team Work:

– Identify “Next Steps” to be completed prior to next trainingIdentify Next Steps to be completed prior to next training – Identify areas for more professional development, additional

information, supports, resources to purchase, community involvementBeebe‐Frankenberger 2007

Comments about RTI – Fall 2006Comments about RTI Fall 2006

N d t i i f i l t ti• Need more training for implementation.• Positive thoughts about RTI and how it is working after only a few short

months.• Would like more money committed to staffing to provide adequate

services.• Too early to see if RTI is more effective than the prior model.• Teachers, staff, and parents working collaboratively to remain positive

and interact positively with students.• Schools need a proactive principal so that the RTI process is more p p p p

manageable.• Many interventions lack integrity.• I believe in the process!I believe in the process!

Identified Needs – Fall 2006Identified Needs Fall 2006

• More training aboutg– Math…Math

– Specific interventions for classrooms

How to group students instructionally– How to group students instructionally

– Handling ADHD children

• Develop teacher‐group decisions on RTI placements

• Reading interventions

• Behavior interventions– Classroom managements

– BIPS that work

• Coaching general educators about baseline data and targetingCoaching general educators about baseline data and targeting a specific skill


• Video – Panel Discussion by RTI Pilot ProjectVideo Panel Discussion by RTI Pilot Project

T h ’ ti f RTI ft th fi t f– Teachers’ perspectives of RTI after the first year of implementation (reading).


Project TimelineProject Timeline

•Phase One2005‐2006 Year 1

•Phase One

2006‐2007

•Phase Two• 2 onsite consultations (fall 2006, winter 2007) to review progress in RTI implementation and topics such as; training the problem solving process for student assistance teams; making decisions using data; writing goals using data; how to review progress; how to read data for systems level improvements; conducting inventory of available interventions and assessments; develop list of interventions and assessments to acquire and

Year 2 train; forms development; parent involvement• 1 state team training, May 2007; team presentations of progress; RTI Math; RTI Social/Behavioral Models

2007‐2008

Year 3

•Phase Three


Implementation Plan &T i i M h d Y 2Training Method – Year 2

• Phase 2 Goals:Phase 2 Goals:– Roll‐out RTI Reading

– Identify further instruction and assessment needs;

– Focus on RTI Team(s) and problem solving;

– Assess and problem solve local systemic issues and data;

– introduce RTI Math

– Introduce RTI Social/Behavioral

i i• Trainings• 2 on‐site training/consultations (Fall, Winter)

• 1 Conjoint training (Spring teams report out)• 1 Conjoint training (Spring– teams report out)


Examples of Year 2 AccomplishmentsExamples of Year 2 Accomplishments

– RTI Steering Team: review school data; focus onRTI Steering Team: review school data; focus on resources; develop forms; increase parent involvement

– RTI PS Team(s): review strategic/intensive data; data‐based decisions; develop team forms; Develop Diagnostic Assessments and Data Collection timeline

h kl– Treatment Integrity measures; RTI checklist

– Develop Curriculum and Assessment MAPS –M thMath

– Overview of RTI Social/Behavioral

Actual Roosevelt

Goals

Spec. Ed.IEP/Intensive●ReplacementTotal 180 Min.

5.4% 5%

Intensive/Replacement90 CORE + 45-60 Intensive 180 Min.

●Title I

5%

●Spec. Educ.●Other

90 Mi CORE 30 Mi S l t l 120 Mi T t l

Instruction = Individual Eval.Problem Solving RIDE/RtI Team

26.7%90 Min. CORE + 30 Min. Supplemental 120 Min. Total●Title I READWELL●Spec. Educ. &●Classroom Teacher Harcourt Intervention

I t ti St d d P t l

10%

Instruction = Standard Protocol

90 CORE90 TOTAL67.9%

80%Harcourt

●Classroom TEACHER

80%


Project TimelineProject Timeline

• Phase One2005‐2006 Year 1

Phase One

2006‐2007 • Phase Two

Year 2

• Phase ThreeU RTI Id tifi ti f SLD di t M t Ad i i t ti R l

2007‐2008

Year 3

• Use RTI as Identification for SLD according to Montana Administrative Rules• Implement RTI Math; math core programs and interventions; screening assessments (CBMS); progress monitoring

• Option to begin implementation of RTI Social/Behavioral (Montana Behavioral Initiative; MBI; and additional training for Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions)

• Continue form development for accountability• Continue form development for accountability


Implementation Plan &i i h dTraining Method – Year 3

• Phase 3 Goals:• Phase 3 Goals:– Roll‐out RTI Math

– identify further instruction and assessment needs;identify further instruction and assessment needs;

– focus on RTI Team(s) and problem solving;

– assess and problem solve local systemic issues and data;

– introduce RTI Social/Behavioral

• Trainings• 2 on‐site training/consultations (Fall, Winter)

• 1 Conjoint training (Spring– teams report out)


To Be Accomplished This YearTo Be Accomplished This Year

– RTI Steering Team: review school data; focus on resources; g ; ;continue form development to institutionalize process; measure and evaluate parent involvement

RTI PS T ( ) i t t i /i t i d t d t b d– RTI PS Team(s): review strategic/intensive data; data‐based decisions; revise team forms

– DevelopTreatment Integrity measures ‐Mathp g y

– Revise Curriculum & Assessment MAPS – Reading & Math

– MBI Training for school‐wide component of RTI Social/Behavioral

– Training for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Social/Behavioral Assessment and Interventions.


• Video – Panel Discussion by RTI Pilot ProjectVideo Panel Discussion by RTI Pilot Project School educators: multiple perspectives

– Specialists’ Perspectives SPED Di t S h l P h l i t R di• SPED Directors, School Psychologists, Reading Specialist, School Counselors


Project Data Collection: Does RTI Work?ll d h• 3 surveys initially and each year:

– RTI Acceptability– Collaboration Survey

RTI I l t ti S– RTI Implementation Survey• State level data

– SPED Identification ratesSt t t d t (ITBS M t CRT )– State outcome data (ITBS, Montana CRTs)

• School level data – 3 years baseline, longitudinal for 3 additional years as schools implement RTI

DIBELS– DIBELS– CBM– ITBS– Montana CRTs– Montana CRTs– Attendance– SPED referrals and identification rates– Office referrals, suspensions & expulsionsO ce e e a s, suspe s o s & e pu s o s

• Qualitative data:– Interview administrators, teachers, RTI Teams, parents


Summary: Where are “ We” and What has been Accomplished: August 2007p g

• Building leadership and collaboration among staff in place.

• Building Level and Problem Solving Teams are in place; meet regularly and use data to make system and individual student decisions.

• All 4 schools have implemented 2X2 essential components in Readingg– Core reading programs – 90 minute uninterrupted block– Tier 2 Strategic and Tier 3 Intensive reading interventions– Screening assessments in place for reading (2 schools for math)

F ti t t l ( it i )– Formative assessment tools (progress monitoring)– Diagnostic assessments in place for reading (math is in development


Summary: Where are “ We” and Wh t h b A li h d A t 2007What has been Accomplished: August 2007

• RTI teams using problem solving at school and d l l

g p gstudent level– EXITING students from intervention! (most are surprised how fast this happened)

– Teachers feel supported – instructional groups and times are more focused, more learning happening!

– High end students are being challenged!g g g• Forms have been developed and streamlined to document the process and direct implementation with fidelity.implementation with fidelity.

• RTI teams are eager to begin Math and Social/Behavioral RTI Systems

Local Decisions: Strong Leadership and Pl i i C i i lPlanning is Critical

• Curriculum and interventions

• Staffing (instruction, intervention, assessment)

• Types of specific assessments

• Differentiated classroom instruction vs. instructional grouping (walk‐to‐read)

• RTI Team composition and function(s)

• How data is reviewed

• Forms (e.g. procedural, parent notification)

• Parent involvement

• Community involvementBeebe‐Frankenberger 2007

Getting ReadyGetting Ready

• Have knowledge of:– The RTI process and how it works– Local school resources, community resources, needsneeds

• Strong building leadershipC t ff t f St i T• Core staff to form Steering Team

• Consensus and commitment among staff for t hsystems change

• Communication with parents and community


To Begin…• Universal screening assessments must be in place (e.g. DIBELS or CBM), scheduled for 3 times per year.

• Instructional blocks scheduled (90 min Reading 60• Instructional blocks scheduled (90 min. Reading, 60‐90 Math)

• Grade level Curriculum MAPSGrade level Curriculum MAPS– Identify Tier 1 Core and Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions– Assign responsibility for instructional delivery and assessment

• RTI Teams in place:– Steering Team (System Level)– Steering Team (System Level)– Problem Solving Team(s) (Student Level)

• TIME for RTI Team Meetings pre‐scheduled to meet g pregularly

RTI ReadinessRTI Readiness

• Checklist of readiness and ongoingChecklist of readiness and ongoing development (handout)

• Successful implementation:– Begin SMALL

– Grow gradually

– Review and revise

– Takes investment of TIME


Professional DevelopmentProfessional Development• Topics for professional development to consider (besides the RTI process):(besides the RTI process):– The Problem Solving method– Assessment:

• Screening (DIBELS, CBM)• Diagnostic (Reading, Math)

– Evidence‐based Interventions – Direct Instruction Methods– Data collection and review– Treatment Integrity– Team Collaboration– Administrator Training in Sustainability & SupervisionAdministrator Training in Sustainability & Supervision


RTI Information

• The OPI Website, Special Education:– Audiovisiual modules about RTI

– Training powerpoints

Essential Component O er ie s– Essential Component Overviews

– Forms

– ResourcesResources

• Contact Info: – Susan Bailey‐Anderson – [email protected] Bailey Anderson [email protected]

– Nikki Sandve – [email protected]

– Margaret Beebe‐Frankenberger: [email protected]


the opi montana rti pilot project final-1pluk.org/training/2_opi_mt_rti_pilot_project.pdf · 2012....

Documents