1 / 33

Livingston County Instructional Consultation Teams

Livingston County Instructional Consultation Teams. Livingston Education Service Agency. 7 States Participating 2007-08. Delaware Michigan Nevada Virginia Maryland North Carolina Indiana. 75+ (K-8) Michigan Schools 28 Districts and 10 Counties Participating 2008-09. EISD.

guido
Download Presentation

Livingston County Instructional Consultation Teams

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Livingston CountyInstructional Consultation Teams Livingston Education Service Agency

  2. 7 States Participating2007-08 Delaware Michigan Nevada Virginia Maryland North Carolina Indiana

  3. 75+ (K-8) Michigan Schools28 Districts and 10 Counties Participating 2008-09 EISD OAKLAND SCHOOLS GRAND HAVEN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FARMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

  4. Livingston County Schools Trained in the IC Model • Brighton • Hawkins Elementary, Jack Yates, Principal, Ellen Robertson, Facilitator • Hilton Elementary, Peggy Moyer, Principal, Deirdre Magolan, Facilitator • Horning Elementary, Susan Johnson, Principal, Danelle Filips, Facilitator • Fowlerville Public Schools • H. T. Smith Elementary School, Jim Kitchen, Principal, Lorinda Handy, Facilitator • Kreeger Elementary School, Jan Fleck, Principal, Shelly Holcomb, Facilitator • Hartland Public Schools • Creekside Elementary School, Tracey Sahouri, Principal, Robbie Murphy, Facilitator • Lakes Elementary School, Lindsay Smither, Principal, Sherry Osterhoff, Facilitator • Round Elementary School, Dave Minsker, Principal, Bonnie Wolf, Facilitator • Village Elementary School, Bill Cain, Principal, Julie Bitner, Facilitator • Howell Public Schools • Challenger Elementary School, Deborah Madeja, Principal, Judi Smith, Facilitator • Latson Elementary School, Kari Naghtin, Principal, Cecile Zacharias, Facilitator • Northwest Elementary School, Kara Cotton, Principal, Wendy Meyers, Facilitator • Southeast Elementary School, Melanie Post, Principal, Suzanne Manninen, Facilitator • Southwest Elementary School, Jill Hilla, Principal, Melissa Nowak, Facilitator • Pinckney Public Schools • Farley Hill, Lynda Henderson, Principal, Kim Rogers, Facilitator • Lakeland Elementary School, Sean LaRosa, Principal, Stephanie Parsons, Facilitator • Pinckney Elementary School, Yvonne Taylor, Principal, Stacey Carson, Facilitator • Navigator School (5-6), Stacey Urbin, Principal, Mary Peet, Facilitator Fourth year,Third year,Second year,First year

  5. Remaining Schools to be Trained • Brighton Lindbom Miller Child Center • Hartland Farms Intermediate • Howell Hutchings Voyager • Pinckney Country Elementary

  6. Funding by LESAFour Year Commitment $1,366,468.00 • 2005-2006 - $186,384.00 • 4 schools in year 1 of training • 2006-2007 - $394,092.00 • 4 schools in year 1 of training • 4 schools in year 2 of training • 2007-2008 – $467,017.00 • 7 schools in year 1 of training • 4 schools in year 2 of training • 2008-2009 - $316,975.00 • 3 schools in year 1 of training • 6 schools in year 2 of training

  7. Cost Breakdown Training Year 1 • Training costs $9,000.00 • Building costs $7,000.00 • Subs, mileage, meals • *½ Salary & Benefits $50,000.00 (facilitator for cohorts 3, 4 & 5) Training Year 2 • Training costs $3,400.00 • Building costs $1,600.00 • Subs, mileage, meals

  8. Goal=Improve Student & Staff Performance Objectives: • develop a systematic support network within each building, including a trained team • enhance teachers’ skills in and application of best practices of instructional assessment, strategies and delivery • develop school-wide norms of collaboration and problem-solving • utilize data for classroom and school decisions ICT Training Manual

  9. IC-Team Case Management Configuration Students Students Students Students CLASSROOM TEACHER CLASSROOM TEACHER CLASSROOM TEACHER CLASSROOM TEACHER CASE MANAGER CASE MANAGER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students TEAM MEMBERS: Administrator General Educators Special Educator School Psychologist Guidance Counselor Health Provider Social Worker Others CLASSROOM TEACHER CASE MANAGER CLASSROOM TEACHER CASE MANAGER Students Students CASE MANAGER CLASSROOM TEACHER CASE MANAGER CLASSROOM TEACHER CASE MANAGER CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER CLASSROOM TEACHER Students Students Students 2007 ICAT Resources All Rights Reserved

  10. IC Problem Solving Stages • Contracting • Inform • Purpose • Focus ∆ • Collaborative Nature • Problem Solving Process • Time/ Data • Gain Agreement • Problem Identification & Analysis • Specific and Observable Terms • Instructional Assessment to ensure an instructional MATCH • Prioritize • Baseline • Goals (3-6 weeks) • Strategy/ Intervention Design • What? • When? • How often? • What Conditions? • Who? • Strategy/ Intervention Implementation Have we done what we’ve planned? • Strategy/ Intervention Evaluation • Weekly data collection • Relate to Baseline and Goals • Follow-up Re-design • Revisit • Revise • Refine • Re-Try • Closure • Goals Met • Teacher’s Comfort • Strategies Embedded/Faded 2007 ICAT Resources All Rights Reserved

  11. ICT Professional Development Training Methods & Levels of Impact Joyce & Showers (1980) Knowing Doing

  12. Project Evaluation Template Potential Project Outcomes Are we actually doing ICT? Professional Collaboration Teacher Satisfaction Survey Team Collaboration Scale Academic Achievement Goal Attainment Scale Building Data Implementation of ICT Level of Implementation Interviews Student Documentation Form Analysis Instructional Practices Teacher Satisfaction Survey Instructional Match Referral/Placements to SE from Annual Data Form School Climate Teacher Satisfaction Survey Team Collaboration Scale 2007 ICAT Resources All Rights Reserved

  13. Level Of Implementation Summary Only schools in year two or beyond: Livingston County • 4 out of 6 schools have received high LOI data – 80% or higher • 1 school at 79% Cohorts 3 & 4

  14. County Data Summary • 78 students served in 6 schools (07-08); • 94% of cases met, exceeded or made progress toward individual goals • 84% of teachers reported being satisfied or very satisfied by process

  15. Instructional Practices • How confident are you in your ability to deal with similar problems in the future? • 67% reported “Very” • How helpful has it been to work with the IC Team Case Manager to develop classroom strategies? • 81% reported “Very”

  16. Instructional Practices

  17. Academic Achievement

  18. Consortium Data Summary • Referrals for special education decreased as result of implementing IC • 20% of IC teams’ students were evaluated compared to 71% of students referred from other teams being evaluated • 15% of students from IC teams were placed in special education while 51% of students served by other teams were placed

  19. Instructional Match

  20. Instructional Match

  21. Instructional Match

  22. Instructional Match

  23. Instructional Match

  24. Cost Analysis of a Special Education Evaluation • $1800 - $2500 per student (Average $2150) • 9 hours Psychologist • 6 hours Special Educator • 3 hours Others (Occupational Therapist, Physical Therapist, Speech Therapist) • 18 – 25 hours Total • Decrease of 23 referrals for cohort 3 alone in one year = $57,500.00

  25. Howell Public Elementary SchoolsReferral Data 06/07 07/08 08/09

  26. Michigan Clarification of Rule 340.1713 The Role of Severe Discrepancy Rule 340.1713 of the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (Rules) allows the use of three options for determining specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility. The rule allows a district to use severe discrepancy, but only as one part of a full and individual evaluation. Severe discrepancy may never be used alone to determine a student eligible as a student with a SLD. Response to Scientific, Research-based Intervention Process In determining eligibility under SLD, one of the options a school district may use is a process that is based on a student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. Depending on the local district’s practice, this process may have a variety of names; e.g., Instructional Consultation Team, Response to Intervention, Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative. The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) does not mandate any specific scientific, research-based intervention process.

  27. Sandy Riley, ICT County Coordinator for Livingston and Washtenaw County sriley@wash.k12.mi.us

  28. Howell Public SchoolsReferral TrendsAll Elementary Schools

  29. Howell Public SchoolsChallenger Elementary SchoolReferral Trends

  30. Howell Public SchoolsLatson Elementary SchoolReferral Trends

  31. Howell Public SchoolsNorthwest Elementary SchoolReferral Trends

  32. Howell Public SchoolsSoutheast Elementary SchoolReferral Trends

  33. Howell Public SchoolsSouthwest Elementary School Referral Trends

More Related