Presentation Transcript

1. Middle Schools Respond to Accountability Pressures through RTI

   Accord Institute for Education Research Ahmet Uludag Ph.D. Ali Korkmaz Ph.D.
2. Accountability Pressures #1 “The “teeth” of NCLB are embedded in the accountability provisions that mandate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towardbenchmarks”. (Finnigan, et. al., 2012) Failure to Meet >>> Designation to be In Need of Improvement Recent numbers from the U.S. Department of Education indicate that nearly 16,000 schools were identified as INI during the 2010-11 school year (eddataexpress.ed.gov)
3. Accountability Pressure #2 Arne Duncan, US Department of Education, estimated that as many as 82% of schools may not reach targets (Duncan, 2011). Now, NCLB waivers for each state in return for: Adopting student growth measures Teacher/Principal Evaluation Career and College-Ready Standards Bottom 15% of poor performing schools are penalized rather than all schools becoming 100% proficiency by 2013-2014 school year.
4. Accountability Pressures #3 In the third year of INI, low performing schools enter into the stage of corrective action. Among other measures, staff can be removed, curricula mandated, management authority revoked, instructional time extended. In the fourth year of INI, Major restructuring via reconstitution, State take over, Conversion to a charter school, Transfer to a private management company. Thus, a school that fails to improve for five consecutive years ceases to exist in its original form according to NCLB (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005).
5. Conceptual Framework: Response to Intervention (RTI) Students who struggle need better and more intense support. On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). Practitioners were previously encouraged to use IQ–achievement discrepancy to identify children with learning disabilities (LD). Now, may use “Response to Intervention,” or RTI, a new, alternative method. Simply it means providing early intervention to all children at risk for school failure.
6. RTI Framework *Source: Pearson Intervention Resources
7. R & I Monitoring at risk students Focusing on identifying student weaknesses. Multi-tiered Instruction Two – four tiers of instruction (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003) The nature of the academic intervention changes at each tier, becoming more intensive as a student moves across the tiers. Increasing intensity is achieved by (a) using more teacher-centered, systematic, and explicit (e.g.,scripted) instruction; (b) conducting it more frequently; (c) adding to its duration; (d) creating smaller and more homogenous student groupings; or (e) relying on instructors with greater expertise.
8. RTI Implementation – Two Approaches Problem solving Level 1- Teacher confers with parents to resolve academic and behavior problems. Level 2- Teacher works with admin or colleagues to analyze, identify an intervention strategy, implement it, and monitor effectiveness. Level 3- Special ed teachers and psychologists work together to redesign the intervention. Level 4- Special education assistance and due process protections are considered. Standard Treatment Protocol Tier 1- Standard treatment for a duration of fixed period. Tier 2- If unresponsive, students are moved to more intensive intervention.
9. Research Question? How LAUSD middle schools attempt to stay of ahead of the external accountability curve by creating a culture of Response to Intervention (RTI) that leads to strong internal accountability?
10. The Need for the Study Few research accounts on the responses of schools to pressure and sanctions (Brady, 2003; CPRE, 2001; Hess, 2003; Malen et al., 2002; Hess, 2003; O’Day, in press; O’Day & Bitter, 2003; Wong, Anagnostopoulos, & Rutledge, 1998). These few accounts suggest that the pressure strategy is a double-edged sword and not as promising as perhaps originally perceived.
11. Methodology Qualitative Study Exploratory Case Study (Yin, 2003) Measure: Principal and Teacher Interviews Tool: Semi-structured interview guide (Patton, 1990; Spradley, 1980) Principal and teacher interviews focused on how accountability pressures impact principal and teacher practices, how struggling learners are treated through RTI practices, where RTI practices come from (e.g. from inside the school versus from central office or intermediary organizations), whether these RTI practices linked to accountability data as defined by accountability frameworks, and how different types of RTI practices were designed, developed, used, and diffused within the school. 
12. Data Comes from four LAUSD charter schools under a Charter Management Organization. Interviewed four principals Interviewed 15 teachers Sampling was convenience sampling The participants were identified in the principal meetings in a district to discuss school and district-wide academic accountability data. The participants have various levels of professional experience but they were all aware that there is abundant pressure on them to meet AYP and AMOs. They were going through charter renewals with the sponsoring district, LAUSD and there is enormous tension to produce better test scores. They could not afford any drops in their API and AYP.
13. Demographics & Academics – School 1 Based on CDE DataQuest Middle and High School (6-12) 10 year old charter school in Valley in Los Angeles. Enrollment: 462 Hispanic=74% White=14% Asian=5 Filipino=5 Free-Reduced Lunch=87% SPED=12% 2011 API=807 >>>> 2012 API= 805 Similar School API = 765 PI = 2nd year AYP = No
14. Demographics & Academics – School 2 Middle and High School (6-12) 5year old charter school in Carson in South LA. Enrollment: 270 Hispanic=49% White=1% African American = 46% Free-Reduced Lunch=63% SPED=7% 2011 API = 754 >>> 2012 API = 785 Similar School API = 776 PI = 2ndyear AYP = No
15. Demographics & Academics – School 3 Middle and High School (6-12) 5 year old charter school in Los Angeles Enrollment: 160 Hispanic=58% White=16% African American = 18% Free-Reduced Lunch=76% SPED=10% 2012 API= 766 >>> 2011 API= 794 Similar School API = 755 PI = Not in PI AYP = No
16. Demographics & Academics – School 4 Middle and High School (6-12) 5 year old charter school in Carson Enrollment: 206 Hispanic=75% White=14% Free-Reduced Lunch=89% SPED=8% 2011 API= 786 >>> 2012 API= 843 Similar School API = 754 PI = 2nd year AYP = No – Made 16 of 17
17. Analysis Our analyses included inductive analyses to allow important themes to emerge out of the data (Patton, 1990). We also used a constant comparative analysis method (Boeije, 2002; Glaser and Strauss, 1967) through checking and rechecking emerging themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994) relating to RTI design and use. Themes and patterns that emerged were examined through the lens of RTI practices.
18. What happened at School 1? There is intense discussion among staff on what to do with struggling learners despite a busy teaching schedule. The RTI implementation is driven by accountability data: Study CST Data > Identify weak students and cluster analysis to adjust lesson planning> Assign them to Intervention Classes > Teach Extra (Intervention Time, After School Tutoring > Saturday School> MAP Testing to check if the intervention is working > Analyze MAP Data > Continue with Intervention – A cycle – but is not working as desired. There are breaks in the cycle. The schedule was adjusted in a way to ensure that struggling learners go to intervention rather than their electives. The caveat for students was that if you want to go to elective, be proficient. A dedicated math intervention teacher: Reteach, drill and kill, Kudo Math Software Worksheets. Accelerated Reader implementation to strengthen reading comprehension skills. Test taking skills thorough intensive test prep. Buckle Down Intervention Resources – More drill and kill exercises. Khan Academy for middle school students. After school until 4 pm Half day Saturday tutoring. Small group (3-4 student) tutoring. Lack off consistency across grades and school.
19. 2009-2012 CST English - School 1
20. 2009 - 2012 CST Math – School 1
21. What happened at School 2? RTI-driven instructional programs. RTI-driven scheduling; no electives for below proficient students RTI implementation was driven by accountability data: The school and district leadership offered a training to do student level sub-groupand cluster analysis utilizing CST individual student reports and Excel Templates. Teacher knew what the weaknesses of their kids are. Leveling students based on accountability data. Ongoing use of data to pressure teachers to produce results. RTI implementation is designed by the admin and teachers collaboratively involving the use of the district promoted instructional programs. After school tutoring, Saturday tutoring, Homework competition, Social responsibility by teachers, they care genuinely. RTI is rather teacher driven; school-wide commitment by all teachers is not always readily available. School culture and staff cohesiveness is not there to ensure school-wide commitment.
22. 2009-2012 CST English – School 2
23. 2009-2012 CST Math – School 2
24. 2012 AYP English and Math-School 2
25. What happened at School 3? RTI is a collaborative effort with the involvement of all teachers. Brainstorming (teachers, administrators, parents) Tutoring(Afterschool, Saturday) Zero Cavity for Math Khan Academy Cross-age Mentoring Mentors in Training
26. 2009-2012 CST English – School 3
27. 2009-2012 CST Math – School 3
28. 2012 AYP English and Math – School 3
29. What happened at School 4? The school administration utilized data to pressure teachers to monitor proficiency throughout the school year. The admin sat down with English and Math teachers to study CST and MAP testing data. RTI is a administration driven effort. No electives and no clubs after the school for struggling learners. Mandatory after school tutoring for struggling learners. Ongoing data discussions with the staff. Staff contract renewal tied to CST and MAP. Administration clearly stated that. Bonus incentive for teachers if students show growth in MAP and CST tests.
30. 2009-2012 CST English – School 4
31. 2009-2012 CST Math – School 4
32. 2012 AYP English and Math – School 4
33. Discussion In this case study, considering API scores for 2012 and 2011, RTI emphasis seemed to work for the schools #2 and 4. There is not much of change for School #1. School #3 saw a major drop in its API score. The follow-up interviews with the principal of School #3 indicates a specific English teacher effect at certain grades . RTI is an identification and classification procedure (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2006) as the data from this suggests. RIT is more comprehensive and a rather on-going evaluation (Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000) as confirmed with these findings. Although all these schools were part of a district, they were designing their own intervention strategies. Some were very innovative with peer mentoring while others were drilling down the data to identify and classify intervention students.
34. Discussion Few had a formal way of monitoring students in the intervention except the triangulation of state test, MAP test, and school grades at individual student level. MAP testing served as the formal way; 3 times a year. No daily, or weekly monitoring of students other than teachers’ own observations on whether students are improving or not. “Teachers may indeed respond to the pressure by heeding, or perhaps teaching to, the test, but forcing them to narrow the scope of their work creates serious acceptability problems (Mintrop, 2004)”. Our findings suggests evidence for this phenomenon of staffing to the test, scheduling to the test, teaching to the test, feeding to the test, etc. Teachers are usually stressed and frustrated with the data. There is some questioning of the validity of tests in the absence of student engagement. “I do not need a test to tell me who is proficient. I already know that.”.
35. Sample Intervention Schedule
36. Future Directions What is the role district in RTI implementation? Is it more effective to establish district-wide RTI programs rather than running individual school-wide RTI programs?
37. Contact Ali Korkmaz, Ph.D. akorkmaz@accordeducation.org AhmetUludag, Ph.D. auludag@accordeducation.org CERA - November 29, 2012