1 / 43

Lynn LeLoup Pennington Education Consultant, President of SSTAGE and Frank Smith

How to Turn a Puzzle into a Pyramid: Fitting Together the Interactive Pieces of Problem Solving, SST and RTI. Lynn LeLoup Pennington Education Consultant, President of SSTAGE and Frank Smith GaDOE, Psychological Services & SST.

orla-greene
Download Presentation

Lynn LeLoup Pennington Education Consultant, President of SSTAGE and Frank Smith

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. How to Turn a Puzzle into a Pyramid: Fitting Together the Interactive Pieces of Problem Solving, SST and RTI Lynn LeLoup Pennington Education Consultant, President of SSTAGE and Frank Smith GaDOE, Psychological Services & SST

  2. How do we create and harness the power of data-driven problem solving; and make it the "glue" for integrating : • assessment • progress monitoring • instruction and learning • interventions -in your school's Pyramid of Interventions?

  3. Why the pyramid and why now? It can provide: • a common sense framework to continuously improve results for all students • an integrated approach to service delivery that encompasses general and special education • a structure for logically embedding research based assessment and teaching/learning practices

  4. Why the pyramid and why now? • New federal and state regulations (have caught up with emerging defensible practices) State Special Ed rules (eff. July 1) have exclusionary clauses for 5 areas that require retrospective proof that student did not learn despite appropriate teaching match.

  5. A child must not be determined to be [EBD, ID, OHI, SDD] if the primary factor for that determination is: a. Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction; b. Lack of appropriate instruction in math; c. Lack of appropriate instruction in writing; d. Limited English proficiency; e. Visual, hearing or motor disability; f. [EBD add intellectual], [ID add emotional], [OHI add both] disabilities, [SDD subtract atypical attendance history] g. Cultural factors; h. Environmental or economic disadvantage; or i. Atypical education history (multiple school attendance, lack of attendance, etc.).

  6. A child must not be determined to be a child with a specific learning disability if the determinant factor is: a. Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, [specifically:] (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension); b. Lack of appropriate instruction in math; c. Lack of appropriate instruction in writing; d. Limited English proficiency; e. Visual, hearing or motor disability; f. Intellectual disabilities; g. Emotional disturbances; h. Cultural factors; i. Environmental or economic disadvantage; or j. Atypical educational history

  7. Specific Learning Disability160-4-7-.05 Appendix (i) (b) Supplementary instruction is provided: (i) that lasts for a minimum of 12 weeks; (ii) At least four data collections of progress monitoring occur during the twelve weeks; (iii) the strategies used and the progress monitoring results are presented to the parents at regular intervals

  8. Paradigm Shift • From - the problem is within the student To - the problem is due to a breakdown in the teaching and learning interaction • From – thinking in terms of Special Ed categories To- solving the problems of students • From – a “wait to fail” approach To - prevent failure, enable success Randy Allison & Martin Ikeda

  9. Paradigm Shift • From – searching for pathology To – focusing on what instructional and learning variables are needed for success • From – generalized discussions of students’ problems (can’t read, doesn’t comprehend, not motivated, etc.) To – using a data-driven, decision making process (specifically, “what is he expected to do; and what can he do now?”) Randy Allison & Martin Ikeda

  10. Pyramid basics – What we do know • The pieces of the puzzle include – I. Standards-based classroom learning II. Needs-based learning III. SST-driven learning IV. Specially designed learning But how do they all work together?

  11. What is the glue that holds all the pieces together at each of the tiers?

  12. Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1 It’s a Data-Based Problem Solving Process!

  13. The Problem Solving Process… Data-Driven Decision Making SEE (Steps 1 & 2) (Step 6) CHECK PLAN (Steps 3 & 4) DO (Step 5)

  14. Problem solving in a nutshell…SEE - PLAN - DO - CHECK • Identify problem (descriptive & measurable) • Gather information and analyze data • Establish instructional/behavioral objectives • Develop an educational plan (which specifies teaching/learning strategies and ongoing assessment measures) • Implement plan • Evaluate plan periodically, adjust as needed Source: Student Support Team Coordinator Standards, PSC Endorsement (2005)

  15. Data-based problem solving represents the core conceptual basis of addressing students’ academic and behavioral problems whether we are focusing on … • the entire school • a single grade level • one classroom • a small group • one student

  16. ? ? Data-based problem solving has usually been identified as a Tier 3 and Tier 4 process, but it is not limited to only those two tiers. It MUST BE the process that guides decision making at every tier! Otherwise, we will miss the opportunity to have an integrated and coordinated approach to service delivery across the pyramid.

  17. Problem solving is a cyclical process which repeats at each tier, but in a more formal and systematic way as it moves up the pyramid in response to the intensity of the problem and the intensity of the services needed to address the needs of the student.

  18. At Tier 1, look for what are the “common” needs of students rather than looking for the differences. • Problem solve on school-level, grade-level or course-level effects.

  19. The problem solving process is not about proving what’s wrong with the student. • It’s ALL about finding out how to teach the student so he can learn. • It’s discovering who that child is …as a LEARNER.

  20. Who guides the processat each of the tiers and who will answer these questions? • Are our students learning? • How do we know they are learning? • Which students are not learning? • Why aren’t they learning? • What do they need in order to learn? • What must we do to provide it? (who, when, where and for how long)

  21. Collaborative Teams and Partnerships • Tier 1 Teams and support personnel • Grade level teams? • Department teams? • Professional Learning Communities ? • Tier 2 Teams and support personnel • Grade level teams? • Professional Learning Communities ? • RTI Teams? • Tier 3 Student Support Teams • Other decision-making teams ? • Tier 4 IEP/Gifted Teams

  22. Is one of these team members a parent?

  23. What is this?

  24. Greater Expectations for SST • Get ready • Data-based problem solving including: • Problem analysis • Data gathering, diagnostic assessment, and interpretation • Monitoring student performance • Researched-based strategies and interventions • Evidence of intervention fidelity and integrity • Follow-up support and coaching

  25. Problem Solving isSystems Thinking “We tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get solved.” Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline, 1990

  26. Achieving Full Scale Implementation • It may take years of preparation for schools to reach the point at which they can actually use data to make informed decisions to guide intervention and learning disability eligibility (RTI). • There is a developmental progression of practices that have to be adopted, implemented and eventually institutionalized (Fullan, 2001) before teams will have adequate assessment data for eligibility decisions. (Nebraska DOE)

  27. Developmental Progression Toward Full Scale Implementation of RTI (Nebraska DOE)

  28. Avoiding Pitfalls to Full Scale Implementation • Build awareness and understanding of the Pyramid of Interventions and the need for problem solving and RTI. • How they relate to other mandates. • How they relate to shared values in the school. • Build infrastructure before innovation is added. • On-going professional learning for all staff • Time for professionals to collaborate, problem solve • Re-examine roles and resources

  29. Lessons learned from others… • Teams and schools require substantial training to effectively implement data-based problem solving (explicit training, modeling, controlled opportunities to apply, onsite support) • Devote intense focus to systems change • Requires a significant paradigm shift (Callender & Ruby)

  30. Where do we begin? • Take stock of what you already have in place. In other words, what’s your baseline or entry level in terms of… • Perceptions, attitudes and understanding? • Tier 1 learning and instructional practices? • Assessment and progress monitoring tools? • Which students are receiving supplemental interventions and what are they? • Problem solving teams? • Roles and responsibilities? • Resources?

  31. Assessment Tools • We have more assessment data available in the classroom than ever before, but are we extracting meaning from what we already have? • Are we using it to transform our instructional practices? • Data must have “instructional utility” or it’s a waste of time for educators and students.

  32. Assessment Tools • Additional questions - • When it is this assessment given and how often? • Is the tool designed or suitable as a benchmark assessment, a universal screening tool, or for progress monitoring? • For progress monitoring tools, use the evaluation criteria of the National Center on Student Progress Monitoringwww.studentprogress.org

  33. Problem Solving is Professional Learning • When teachers use the data-driven problem solving in a culture of teamwork, teachers’ skills grow and their professional knowledge deepens. • Problem solving connects teacher learning to student learning. (Deojay & Pennington, 2004)

  34. With the Pyramid of Interventions we may… • Provide increasingly more intensive interventions • Embed systematic, collaborative, data-based problem solving processes • Engage parents as partners in assisting student learning

  35. With the Pyramid of Interventions we may… • Embrace a model of prevention, not a model of failure • Focus on results, not procedural and process compliance • Assess to inform instruction, not to determine classification

  36. References: • Allison, R., & Ikeda, M., From Theory to Practice: Critical Considerations for Response to Intervention, Iowa Department of Education, (2006) • Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J.F., Prasse, D., Reschly, D.J., Schrag, J., & Tilly III, W.D., (2005), Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation, Alexandria, VA, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc. • Batsche, George, Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Implications for Policy and Practice, G-CASE Presentation, 11-9-06 • Bergan, J.R. (1977) Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH, Charles E. Merrill • Brown-Chidsey, Rachel & Steege, Mark W. (2005) Response to intervention: principals and strategies for effective instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. • Callender, Wayne and Ruby, Susan Getting Started with Response to Intervention (RTI): Big Ideas and Essential Components, www.k12.wa.us/conferences/summerinstitute2006/Materials/CallenderW2/OSPIhandouts1.pdf • Chalfant, J.C., Pysh, M.V. & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85-95.

  37. References: • Deojay, T.R., & Pennington, L.L. (2004) Content: Connecting data, professional development, and student achievement. In Powerful designs for professional learning. Easton, L. (ed.), Oxford, OH, National Staff Development Council • DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Karhanek, G. (2004), Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN, National Educational Service • Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY : Teachers College Press. • Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D., Applying Progress Monitoring to RTI Prevention and Identification,, Vanderbilt University, [www.studentprogress.org] • Jenkins, Tom, Problem Solving Model in Detail Preparation for Implementation, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Exceptional Children Division • Hofmeister, A.M. (2000). Strategies for effective academic instruction: What is an instructional program? The Utah Special Educator, 20(4), 4-5. • Response-to-Intervention Technical Assistance Document, Nebraska Department of Education and the University of Nebraska (June 2006) • Tilly, D. (2003, December). Heartland Area Education Agency’s evolution from four to three tiers: Our journey - our results. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

  38. Websites • Intervention Central, www.interventioncentral.org • National Center for Student Progress Monitoring, www.studentprogress.org • What Works Clearinghouse, www.whatworks.ed.gov • National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, www.nrcld.org • National Association of School Psychologists, www.nasponline.org

  39. To contact us: Lynn L. Pennington Office: 770-752-9941 lynchpenn@aol.com Frank Smith Office: 404-656-5805 fsmith@doe.k12.ga.us

More Related