Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Including Students with Disabilities in a Culturally Responsive Multi-Level System of Support Marlene Gross-Ackeret, WI RtI Center/PBIS Network Dana McConnell, WI RtI Center/PBIS Network Tiffany Helmke and Amy Tranel, Dodgeville Elementary School Linda Zeman, Chetek-Weyerhauser School District
Agenda • Introductions • Outcomes for the day • Systems view • For ALL • Belief System/Culture • District level support structures • Data • How are you collecting data? • Looking at data? • Using Data? • What are you missing? • Data walk-through • School Examples • Dodgeville Elementary • Chetek-Weyerhauser • Questions…
Outcomes for the Session Research and rationale Understanding of benefits for ALL students and staff Data walk-through and its uses School Examples of what this looks like
We Know……. • To improve the academic success of our children, we must also improve their social success. • Academic and social failures are reciprocally and inextricably related.
Educational Outcomes for Students w/Disabilities Students w/disabilities are almost 2X as likely to be suspended from school as nondisabled students, with the highest rates among black children with disabilities. 13% of students w/ disabilities in kindergarten through 12th grade were suspended during the 2009-10 school year, compared to 7% of students without disabilities. Among black children with disabilities, the rate was much higher: one out of four were suspended at least once that school year. Department of Ed.; The New York Times, August 7, 2012 Marlene – Is this the most current data?
Educational Outcomes for Students with EBD 40-60% drop out of high school (Wagner, 1991, 1996; Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein, 2005) Experience poorer academic performance than Students with SLD (Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006) 10-25% enroll in post-secondary education (compared to 53% of typical population) (Bullis & Cheney, 1999) High rated if unemployment/underemployment post-school (Bullis & Cheney, 1999; Kortering, Hess & Braziel, 1996, Wagner 1991; Wehman, 1996) High rates of MH challenges, poverty, incarceration (Alexander, et al., 1997; Kortering, et al., Lee and Burkham, 1992, Wagner 1992)
Youth with EBD . . . Disengaged from school/family/community Most likely disability group to be educated in a segregated setting Highest rates of disciplinary infractions Perceived by teachers as having significantly lower levels of social competence and school adjustment (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006)
Bridging the Gap General + Intensive Resources General + Supplemental Resources Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem General Resources Intensity of Problem
Systems View • What is the culture of your building? • Is there a belief that SwD should be included in our schoolwide system/data? • Do we have high expectations for ALL? Academics AND Behavior? • Are we ALL working towards the same vision and mission? • What are our non-negotiables in order to achieve that vision and mission?
Healthy School Culture “Educators have an unwavering belief in the ability of all of their students to achieve success, and they pass that belief on to others in overt and covert ways. Educators create policies and procedures and adopt practices that support their belief in the ability of every student.” - Kent D. Peterson in Cromwell, 2002.
Cultural Change “Structural change that is not supported by cultural change will eventually be overwhelmed by the culture, for it is in the culture that any organization finds meaning and stability.” Schlechty, Shaking Up the Schoolhouse: How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation (2001), p. 52
District Level Support Structures Needed for Sustainability… District structures must be in place in order to support and sustain systems change efforts!
Data Audit • Behavior Data • ODRs per day per mo. • By behavior • By time of day • By location • By infraction • Other including M/m • Group, etc. • Attendance • EE or LRE • Detentions • Suspensions I/O • Expulsions • Academic data per group/individual • Etc.
Activity: Think – Pair- ShareReflect on Current Practices • What are your current practices for teaching behavioral expectations? • What about for SwD’s? • Are SwD’s included in your school-wide discipline data? • How are you using this data? • Do you capture data differently for SwD’s? • Separate system or extension of school-wide system? • Do you have the same behavioral expectations for your SwD’s? • Are they linked back to the school-wide expectations?
Think about this…….. • Academics: • CCSS, CCEE = Smarter Balanced • Behavior: • Behavior Matrix = ODR’s
How do you disaggregate your data? What does that really mean? How are we using the data to make decisions?
Main Ideas • Build “decision systems” not “data systems” • Use data in “decision layers” • Is there a problem? (overall rate of ODR) • Localize the problem • (location, problem behavior, students, time of day) • Get specific. Do not speak in code. • Do not drown in the data • It’s “OK” to be doing well • Be efficient • What do you do for students without IEP’s that display similar behaviors (e.g. homework completion)?
Main Ideas cont’d • Do we have a problem? • Refine the description of the problem? • What behavior, Who, Where, When, Why • Test hypotheses • “I think the problem on the playground is due to Eric” • “ We think the lunch period is too long” • “We believe the end of ‘block schedule” is used poorly” • Define how to monitor if solution is effective
We can’t include SWD in our data! SWD will skew our data We have this one kid who . . . We will look bad when we present data to the School Board If we keep track of every thing he/she does, that’s all we would have time to do Others?
ALL Students “Equality means we don’t find a place for her; we make this the place for her.” (Rob Horner, 2013) The single largest reason: students are moved social behavior teachers leave social behavior
Key Concept Putting outcomes for students with IEP’s into the context of schools as systems to educate and support ALL students.
SCHOOL EXAMPLES: Outline of Focus • Historical view in implementing PBIS and RtI (CR-MLSS) • What is the culture of your building? • Is there a belief that SwD should be included in our schoolwide system/data? • Do we have high expectations for ALL? How do you show this? • How do you know you have a positive school culture? Are you measuring this? • Have you included SwD in your data from the beginning? • What does this look like in your school? • What obstacles/challenges did you encounter? • How did you overcome them?
Outline cont’d • How are you using your systems data to support your SwD? • What benefits/efficiencies have you identified by doing this? Are there things that you have been able to eliminate or ‘take off people’s plates’? • How else are you using this data for SwD? • What does disaggragating data look like in your school? • Have you had any “Ah-ha’s or Uh-ohs”? • What other supports/structures do you have in place to close achievement gaps for SwD’s in your school? • What does the role of your special educators look like within your school system? • How has the role of special educators evolved? Or, hasn’t it? • How are they involved in collaboration time? • What has the impact of your efforts been?
Mtss for Swds at Des: An alphabet soup story of our FYIs, OMGs, BTWs for including SwDs in MTSS.
Here’s a story, of a lovely school district: 1288 students 2 elementary schools 598 students 1 middle school 294 students 1 high school 396 students Race/Ethnicity Asian-1.4%; Black- 2.2%; Hispanic- 2.6%; White- 92.7% Economically Disadvantaged 32.2% Mobility Ratio Ratio of non-Full Academic Year (FAY) students: FAY students-0% Disability Status 11.9% SwDs
Our Beg: RtI Implementation: 9 years REACh grant Reading PBIS Implementation: Tier 1: 5 years Tier 2: 2 years
Marriage of RtI and PBIS • Co-teaching to support IEPs wherever possible to support academic and behavior needs • Academics- Benchmarking, progress monitoring, gap closure, growth • Behavior- SWIS (behavior and attendance) and life skill data Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. A Fyi: Our Mtss framework
School Report Card data- SwDs needed to be an area of focus Track progress co-teaching model Racial diversity is limited, therefore SwDs are followed as a sub-group due to risk ratios SwDshave always accessed core. Recently began participating in Tier 2 with general education students (previously provided through special education services) Btw, we believe that: The MTSS framework is for ALL students- including those with disabilities.
District goal: Close gap of each SwD by 1/3 each year • Focus on not only students who are struggling but those accelerating • Ensure all students are accessing core and interventions Omg. We have high expectations. But we like it.
Co-teachers • Share knowledge of accommodations and interventions • Provide interventions • Support others in progress monitoring • Team approach for all- administrators, counselors, Encore staff • Special Education Teachers • AKA • Masters of playing multiple roles in our story!
MTSS meetings • PST meetings • Grade level meetings • Professional Development • Educator Effectiveness Pilot • Bffs talk! • Special Education Teachers collaborate frequently. • It’s a necessity.
Including Swds? It was Ez! • JK. • We had challenges along the way. • Student progress- Are students making progress? Maintaining? Or regressing? • Many questions such as: • “Why change what we are doing? By including them in general education programming, does this lose focus of an individualized education plan?”
Initiated courageous conversations about programming and performance of students • Implementation of the problem solving process- not separate from the IEP team, but offered frequent support through collaboration on meeting student needs • System of support in responding to all needs- System of breaks, behavior responses, providing interventions • What’s Gr8 about including Swds? • A systematic, team response so that ALL are meeting student needs- ‘All our students, all the time’ philosophy • Support system for staff and students • CST- including individuals from all areas to support students
Is the culture in our fairytale positive? You bet. It’s what we do. It’s our philosophy. We are a PLC. We even LOL together. • Student surveys • Parent survey • Substitute survey • Strong acknowledgement system for staff and students
Number of students qualifying for special education services has decreased. We support them through MTSS. Influencing more focus on early intervention. • Many SwDs are on track or have closed the gap. Positive progress for those in co-taught classrooms as well. • Positive percentages for students meeting growth goals. • Positive feedback from students and parents regarding co-teaching, particularly for SwDs. • Significant decrease in suspensions this year. • There will be more!- We haven’t finalized our fairytale ending yet because we are continuing to refine our system. • What can we Celebr8? • There’s always room for celebration.
The End! • Hopefully this isn’t TMI?
About the District • Just over 1000 students PK-12 • High poverty rate • Declining enrollment • In the RtI journey for over 11 years • We started with a focus on reading and behavior • Math and language arts was added later • More than 99% of our SWD are fully included in core curriculum and general classes • SWD have been included in in data sets from beginning • Our buildings use resources differently
What We Know Structure change alone will not improve a school. Educators must create a new culture with new assumptions, beliefs, expectations, values & habits that constitute the norm for that school.
A Necessity • We had difficult conversations • Grading • Formative vs. summative assessments • Accommodations vs. modifications
Critical Philosophies • All students fit into the multi-tiered system • We do not have adequate staff to create two separate systems. • Challenge expectations for SWD • All but 4 students expected to meet all academic expectations • Academic expectations can be modified • All but 6 students expected to meet all behavioral expectations • For each student we are accommodating for their disabilities but have not needed to modify expectations.
Critical Philosophies • Continual use of data and all students count • Look at the whole child • Academic screeners • Behavior screeners