Interrupting the Deficit Based Model: CREATING PROACTIVE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES FOR ALL LEARNERS

1. Elise Frattura, Ph.D Interrupting the Deficit Based Model: CREATING PROACTIVE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES FOR ALL LEARNERS

2. Interrupting Our Deficit-Based System: Leveraging For Proactive Services Core Principles: Focusing on Equity NON-NEGOTIABLES Establishing Equitable Structures: Location and Arrangement of Students and Staff: INFRASTRUCTURES Implementing Change: LEVERGING POLICY AND FUNDING Establishing Access to High Quality Teaching and Learning: DEVELOPING TEACHER AND LEADER CAPACITY

3. What. … Integrated Comprehensive Services for Each and Every Learner

4. How. … We Must Invert a Deficit-Based System To a Proactive or Asset-Based System A quick look at our history…

5. What our data tells us. .. • Schools have a culture ofMarginalization • By race • By disability • By language • By social class • By ability • By Sexuality

6. Creating a Deficit Based System Other Students Fail System Continues School System Norm Short Term Results Norm Unchanged Bandages Continue Student Receives Bandage Compulsory Education Student Falls School System Continues Short-Term Fixes Frattura, 2012

7. General Education Title 1 Programs Guidance Programs Guidance Programs Programs for Students under Section 504 Limited English Speaking Programs Alcohol and Drug Programs • General • Education At- Risk Program for HS Students At- Risk Program for HS Students Programs for Homeless Children Early Childhood Programs Frattura, 2012

8. General Education Title 1 Programs Guidance Programs Programs for Teenage Parents Programs for Students under Section 504 Programs for At-Risk Middle School Students Limited English Speaking Programs Gifted and Talented Programs Alcohol and Drug Programs Programs for Students with ADHD • General • Education At- Risk Program for HS Students Programs for Homeless Children Special Education Programs Programs for Nonreaders at the Third Grade Early Childhood Programs Frattura, 2012

9. Tiers Special Education 5%-10% 3 Targeted Interventions 20% 2 School Wide Interventions 80% 1

11. Gifted Pull Out Intensive Interventions Intensive Intervention ELL Pull Out Reading Recovery 3 Special Education 5%-10% Intensive Intervention Intensive Intervention Math 2 Targeted Interventions 20% Programs for Nonreaders at Third Grade Read 180 Intensive Intervention Intensive Intervention 1 School Wide Interventions 80% SRA ABA Test Taking Pull Outs

12. Over Time We Create More Labeled Students and a Smaller Norm Group Reading Interventions Orthopedically Impaired Learning Disabilities • The populations of disabilities increasing are those that are not medically diagnosed. …but educationally • Such a practice has the following results: Gifted Programs for Students with ADHD Cognitive Disabilities • General • Education Math Interventions Behavioral Disabilities Early Childhood Programs Autism Frattura, 2012

13. Results: average 13% disability • In the US –- (Sample Categories) • Percent of total enrollment over 35 years (1976-2011) for students with • Learning Disabilities 1.8% to 4.9% • Emotional Disabilities .6%-.8% • Other Health Impaired .3% to 1.4% • While Biological Disabilities Remained Decreased or Unchanged • Cognitive Disabilities 2.2 to 2.1 (including autism, TBI) • Hearing .2 to .2 • Visual .1 to .1

14. Urban HS Current Service Delivery Special Ed Parents Administration Literacy Coaches School Gov. Council Guidance ESL Boys to Men by interest In House Suspension SWIS 9th& 10th After School Tutor SW BISSW Aide Tardy Room NHS By Interest Nurse Step Up S.A.P. Speech & Language Itinerant HI, VI, OT, PT Inclusion DT 8 ts AP by interest Bilingual DVI Special Education Clubs and Sports by Interest Psych SCI Resource

15. Current Structure • What is your current program model?

16. Unintentional? But some practices were intentional • Dean Cubberly (1917-1933) at Stanford stated:“ We should give up the exceedingly democratic idea that all are equal and that our society is devoid of classes. … the wage earner remains the wage earner... One bright child may be worth more to the national life than thousands of those of low mentality.” • Tracking • IQ testing offered a seemingly scientific basis for assigning students to varying curricular tracks

17. What if? Pedagogy of the Oppressed As Freire stated in 1970 in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed: It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them. This is done by varied means, from the repressive methods of the government bureaucracy to the forms of cultural action with which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they are being helped. (p. 141)

18. Results of our current program model?

19. Tracks and marginalizes students of color, poverty, language , and disability 1

20. Fragment a student’s day? 2 Students with the greatest need for a comprehensive education… …are required to synthesize the most information from the most environments and the most teachers

21. Some students receive services while others are denied? 3 • Eligibility criteria • Wait to fail • Teach in a manner that a child does not learn and then offer it again – as a double dose • Reactive programs: All Programs

22. Blames and labels the student and provides less rigor and content! 4

23. Prevents transfer of educator and student knowledge back to integrated environments 5

24. 6. But we keep pouring a ton of money 6 Into supporting a deficit- based system • Administrators • Teachers • Classrooms • Schools • Evaluations

25. Data does not reflect “helping” 7 *Results with low standard cut-scores

26. And we keep adding to our programs requiring students to go “someplace” else to get their needs met 8 • Findings from District Equity Audits completed for 861 and 961 for the past decade: • 2003-2008 – 32% - 56% • 2009-2013 – 47% -72% Increase in students eligible for different programs

27. At Your Tables:Chicken or the Egg? • Do our program structures increase the gaps • in achievement and behavior? Let’s take 10 minutes to discuss

28. Here’s what we know – Attention to the Research What we know • Varied achievement within student groupings positively impacts student achievement. • The students who are isolated the most in ability groupings often are the furthest behind. Hnushek, E.,Klin, J., Markman, M., Rivkin, S. (2003) Does Peer Ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics

29. Maximizing Student Benefit by Investing in Leadership State Leadership, Policies and Practices Student/Family Background School Conditions District Leadership, Policies and Practices Student Learning School Leadership Teachers Classroom Conditions Leaders’ Professional Development Experiences Other Stakeholders Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom,& Anderson (2010).

30. Location defines education… • At any point, during at least the last 50 years, a synthesis of available empirical evidence would have suggested, that students having difficulty at school, especially those disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds, learn more when they are working in heterogeneous rather than in homogenous ability groups(Oakes, 1985,Yonezawa, Wells, and Serna, 2002). • Relatively high expectations for learning, a faster pace of instruction, peer models of effective learning and curricula that are more challenging are among the reasons offered for this advantage. Leithwood, Louis, Andserson, and Wahlstrom (2004)

31. Location defines education… • In spite of this evidence, over this same period, the vast majority of teachers and administrators have enacted practices that separate students by ability; allowing for the concentration of instructional resources on the same set of learning problems. • Many teachers have regarded implementing heterogeneous grouping practices in classrooms as very difficult. • Nevertheless, this is one of the rare examples of professional “common sense” being just plain wrong! Leithwood, Louis, Andserson, and Wahlstrom (2004) Jeannie Oakes (2008)

32. Dr. Jeannie Oakes UCLA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaz3JA5terI

33. Acceleration Has The Greatest Impact On Student Achievement Hattie, 2009,2012; McNulty 2012

34. Making Connections • Aligning our data to our models …tracks …. programs.….intervention… services” General Education Tier 1 Core Instruction Programs and Interventions? Do Perceptions Matters?

35. Elementary Science (District A)More Inclusion = Higher scores More ability grouping through RtI = Lower scoresN=3500  RtI Inclusion

36. Elementary Mathematics (District A) More Inclusion = Higher scores More ability grouping through RtI = Lower scoresN=3500N=3500  Inclusion RtI

37. Middle School Language Arts (District B)More Inclusion = Higher scores More ability grouping through RtI = Lower scoresN=3000  Inclusion RtI

38. High School Social Studies (District C)More Inclusion = Higher scores More ability grouping through RtI = Lower scoresN=1700  Inclusion RtI

39. Sample District Little Inclusion Practices (District D)Elementary Reading: Trend Lines More ConstantN=1500 All Pull Out Instructional Format

40. Sample District Little Inclusion Practices (District E)Secondary Mathematics: Trend Lines More ConstantN=3000 All Pull Out Instructional Format

41. All instruction for all learners, including students with disabilities, is premised on a rigorous core curriculum for all students Students with and without disabilities, linguistically diverse, advanced, and struggling learners are placed in general classrooms using principles of natural proportions – small group instructional spaces are available for all students Our Common NONNEGOTIABLES:Are the Basis to Our Common Work Forward

42. One Tier for ALL Learners Special Education 5%-10% 3 Targeted Interventions 20% 2 School Wide Interventions 80% 1 And Target Interventions 100%

43. Universal Design to Teaching and Learning through ICS Allows for Multi-Level Systems of Supports for Academics and Behavior (RtI) Balanced Assessment Collaborative Team Work Culturally Relevant High Quality Instruction Multi-Level System of Support

44. RtI Guiding Principles • RtI is for ALL children and ALL educators • RtI must support and provide value to high quality instruction • Success of RtI lies within the classroom through collaboration • RtI applies to both academics and behavior • RtI supports and provides value to the balanced use of multiple assessments to inform instructional practices • RtI is something you do and not necessarily something you buy • RtI emerges from and supports research and evidence-based practices

45. We Must Live the Words: we do not have to segregate to document student outcomes and progress

46. State Regulations =Lowest Denominator • Aim, expect, and demand 100% at the Common Core – Tier 1 for all students. • Aim, expect to lose 20% to 40% out of your Common Core – moving through the Tier process as a separate placement

47. Moving Forward- Nonnegotiables • The continuum of services allows for large group, small group, and 1:1 instruction based on “how” each child learns, within Tier 1. • Special and general educators, interventionist, Title supports, ELL teachers, etc. are aligned to specific grade levels (to become grade-level teams) to share knowledge and expertise with each other to intentionally increase each others capacity to better service all learners.

48. Structural Supports: Example School Delivery Model Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Grade Level Support Team Grade Level Support Team Grade Level Support Team Grade Level Support Team Direct Support Personnel Direct Support Personnel Assistant Direct Support Personnel Assistants Direct Support Personnel Assistants Indirect Support Personnel Indirect Support Personnel Indirect Support Personnel Indirect Support Personnel Adapted from Capper & Frattura, 2009

49. Elementary School Example 6 special educators (currently 2 self-contained and 4 cross-categorical) 2 Bilingual Resource Support 2 Reading Teachers 45 students speech and language 515 students within the school - 74 with disabilities 2 students with CD in 5th grade do not attend the school they would attend if not disabled – will be grandfathered and transferred in 6th grade 5 students with EBD do not attend the school they would attend if not disabled and will be transferred to their home school effective immediately Resulting in a loss of .5 special educator Increase of 2 para’s due to students returning from “Someplace Else” Developing Proactive Service Delivery Structures