RtI: Setting Up and Getting Started

1. RtI: Setting Up and Getting Started Kimberly Honnick ASCD, March 2008

2. Thank You • ASCD • New Orleans • You!

3. Getting to Know You • University/Higher Education • Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents • Central Office Administration • CST Members • Principals, Assistant Principals • Teachers • BOE Members • Consultants

4. Background of RtI • Heard of it, not sure what it is about • Know about it, need more details • Clear on what it is, looking to implement • Planning to/going to implement • Currently implementing

5. Please take the index card and write down 2-3 questions or “things” you would like to learn about or have more information on during our time together today.

6. Share your questions/what you would like to know more about.

7. Objectives • “Big Picture” overview of RtI • Share my district’s experiences researching, designing, and implementing RtI • Focus on a “how to” approach • Dialogue/Questions & Answers

8. Decision to Implement RtI • Conversations: Superintendent, Director of Special Services, and myself • Decision was made by Superintendent • Based in part on evaluation results of the basic skills program • New Jersey: not a State initiative

9. Step 1: Research – What I Found • RtI is a general education initiative • RtI related research and information came from those involved in Special Education • Predominant resources: NASP, NASDSE • State/district initiatives

10. What is RtI? • Framework involving a multi-tier system of intervention options designed to assist children exhibiting academic and/or behavioral difficulties • Integrated approach – collaboration between special and general education

11. Consistent with Federal Legislation • Outlined in IDEA (2004): • Process used in determining a specific learning disability • Up to 15% of funds can be used for RtI • NCLB

12. IDEA Local education agencies (LEAs) may use a student’s response to scientifically-based instruction as a part of the evaluation process; and (b) when identifying a disability, LEAs shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability [P.L. 108-446, 614(b)(6)(A)].

13. Core Principles of RtI • High quality, research supported, scientifically based curriculum and instructional practices • Data driven decision making: initial assessment/screen, diagnostics, continuous progress monitoring • Problem solving, team-based approach

14. 3 Tier Model: Behavioral Academic

15. Tier 1: A Closer Look • Universal screening • Curriculum based measurements (CBM) • Student data against benchmarks within curriculum and instructional processes • Interventions within classroom setting by classroom teacher

16. Tier 2: A Closer Look • Targeted short-term interventions to those students demonstrating need • Supplemental support in addition to core instruction • Small group • Frequent monitoring

17. Tier 3: A Closer Look • Intensive intervention • Longer term • Individualized program • More frequent monitoring

18. Problem Solving Model Define the Problem

19. Team-based Approach • School-based teams are formed • Referral process is followed • Teams make data driven decisions, collaboratively with teachers and parents, to design learning plans for identified students

20. Traditional: Criteria: Discrepancy, SLD exclusion factors Tests: Ability, achievement Comparison: National norms RtI: Criteria: Performance against peers, low rate of progress Tests: Skill specific Comparison: District, school, classroom standards RtI and SE Eligibility

21. Traditional: Tests: 1 or 2 sessions Assessment Targets: Indirect or general relationship to classroom behavior, intrinsic to child GE Curriculum: Minimal relationship RtI: Tests: Continuous, over time Assessment Targets: Very specific skills, what a child can/cannot do – skills and performances GE Curriculum: Direct relationship RtI and SE Eligibility

22. Traditional: Eligibility Assessments and Intervention Relationship: Often little Info from Parents and Teachers: Typically supplemental RtI: Eligibility Assessments and Intervention Relationship: Direct link Info from Parents and Teachers: Typically central RtI and SE Eligibility Source: NASDSE

23. Superintendent Asst. Supt. Principals Teachers CST Members Guidance Directors: Special Services & Testing Step 2: Form RtI District-Wide Committee

24. Step 3: Needs Assessment • Reviewed all current curricular materials, programs • Schedule • Personnel • Data

25. Key Programs in Place • Reading Recovery • Math Recovery • LAL standards-based, research supported program • Literacy groups

26. Where to Start? • Originally: K-12 • Decision to implement K-5 – most applicable current programs are in this age group • Partially implement grade 6

27. To Do List • Detrack Grades 2-6 • Revise Schedule: math, intervention time • Plan Tiered Interventions • Personnel Deployment

28. District RTI 4 Tier Model • Tier 4: CST referral • Tier 3: intensive 1 on 1, individual practice • Tier 2: small group, push-in • Tier 1: infuse strategies into classroom practices

29. Pyramid of Interventions

30. Our Tier 1 • Curricular Initiatives: • UbD • DI • Curriculum Mapping • CBM: AIMS Web

34. Our Tier 1 • Instructional Initiatives: • Schools Attuned • Literacy training • Math training • Goal: high quality, research supported programs/practices

35. How we feel about this…Progress Monitoring “Aims Web is useful as well. It is easy to watch the progress the children are making or not making and it gives us the opportunity to keep a close eye on ALL. One very important aspect that makes RTI easy to follow is that we do not have to wait for the paperwork to be processed, sent home, sent back and approved by the parents. Now that it is under the umbrella of regular education it makes it VERY EASY to serve EVERY student.” Helen, Interventionist

36. Our Tier 2 • Push-in model • Goal: in-class support within regular classroom setting through flexible grouping

37. Commentary on the Push-In Model “Tier 2- I push in to two second grade classrooms for math. It is going very well. We team teach during the 2 to 3 days I am in with them . I find that the children are doing well and are very receptive to the different styles of teaching. Sometimes we alternate teaching while the other teacher watches the children’s responses and sometimes we make small groups.” Helen, Interventionist

38. Commentary on the Push-In Model “Co-teaching is working Great for me. I push-in (Tier 2) with grade 3 Reading and grade 3 Math. We work very well together. Sometimes, they teach a lesson or I do. Sometimes, we pull small groups or conference with individual students. I have been Strategic Monitoring all of my identified Tier 2 students in both subjects for concrete data. Unfortunately, due to my tier 3 schedule, I don’t get to stay for an entire period with either teacher, and I believe they would both like to keep me with them to complete lessons we start together.” Dawn, Interventionist

39. Our Tier 3 • Literacy Groups • Reading Recovery • Math Recovery • Supplemental instructional periods with materials – Options (Options publishing) • Goal: provide intensive, supplemental support that minimizes time out of classroom

40. How is this going? “Tier 3-Math Recovery is going very well. I believe that the Everyday Math series correlates to the SNAP and Math Recovery program we have been using. The language is closely related to each other. I work closely with the classroom teacher to make sure the children are succeeding in their classrooms. During parent teacher conferences parents remarked on the program and that their children are improving greatly.” Helen, Interventionist

41. How is this going? “Tier 3 is also going well. I take my Grade 1 Math Recovery students at all different times of the day and I progress monitor them through AIMS Web so I have additional concrete data. Math Recovery students are finding great success and making connections. Math Recovery is going well and the language is reciprocated in the classroom with Everyday Math.” Dawn, Interventionist

42. Children Served: Ravine Drive School

43. Ravine Drive School

44. Strathmore School

45. Strathmore School

46. Lloyd Road School

47. Lloyd Road School

48. What are the Parents Saying? Please see letter in packet

49. Jessie: Elementary Supervisor “Through RtI, we are beginning to see a great deal of growth in collaboration and articulation among teachers.” 

50. Wayne: Director and Principal “This program is one of the best initiatives we have taken on to date. Our goal is to have all students reach their fullest potential.” (30 years in district)