Scaling up Implementation

1. : Scaling up Implementation A collaborative project between the Florida Department of Education and the University of South Florida FloridaRtI.usf.edu

2. Who are we? Regional Coordinators Beth Hardcastle Kelly Justice Brian Gaunt Graduate Assistant Coordinators Decia Dixon Amanda March Project Evaluator Jose Castillo Project Leader Clark Dorman Co-Directors Mike Curtis George Batsche Florida Department Of Education

3. Available at: www.florida-rti.org Florida Department of Education 2008

4. State Infrastructure State Management Group Todd Clark, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Instruction and Innovation Shan Goff, Executive Director, Office of Early Learning Evan Lefsky, Executive Director, Just Read, Florida! Bambi Lockman, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Exceptional Education & Student Services Jay Pfeiffer, Deputy Commissioner, Accountability Research and Measurement Hue Reynolds, Director of Communications and Public Affairs, Office of Communications and Public Affairs Mary Jane Tappen, Deputy Chancellor for Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Services, Office of the Chancellor Iris Wilson, Deputy Chancellor for Student Achievement, Office of the Chancellor Representatives from State Transformation Team

5. State Infrastructure State Transformation Team Ginger Alberto, Office of Achievement through Language Acquisition, FLDOE George Batsche, Mike Curtis, Clark Dorman – Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project, USF Liz Crawford, Florida Center for Reading Research, FSU Heather Diamond, Bureau of Exceptional Education & Student Services, FLDOE Sandy Dilger, Bureau of School Improvement, FLDOE Don Kincaid, Heather George, Karen Childs – PBS Project, USF Mary Little, Response to Intervention’s Teaching Learning Connections, UCF Martha Murray, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, FLDOE Rob Schoen, Office of Mathematics and Science, FLDOE Melinda Webster, Just Read, Florida!, FLDOE

6. State Infrastructure State Advisory Group - representatives from: Regional Implementation Teams (district contacts, coaches, etc.) Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) Florida Center for Research – Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (FCR-STEM) Early Childhood Association of Florida (ECA) Florida Association of District School Superintendents (FADSS) Florida Association of School Administrators (FASA) Florida Educators Association (FEA) Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) Family Network for Students with Disabilities (FND) Florida Association of Student Services Administrators (FASSA) Purpose is to Provide on-going stakeholder input

7. Regional Meetings • Top Level District Administrators • 8 sites across the state • 3 eight hour sessions per site • Focused on creation of district PS/RtI plans • Consensus • Infrastructure • Implementation

8. Florida PS/RtI Project Two purposes of PS/RtI Project Evaluate the impact of PS/RtI on educator, student, and systemic outcomes in pilot sites implementing the model Statewide training in PS/RtI

9. Selected Pilot Sites 7 Demonstration School Districts 34 pilot PS/RtI schools 27 matched comparison schools Districts and schools vary in terms of Geographic location Student demographics District size: 6,200 – 105,000 students

10. Demonstration Districts

11. Statewide Training Overview 3 year training curriculum Problem Solving Process 3-Tiered RtI Model Systems Change Limited technical assistance and support Limited data collection

12. Statewide Training Sites

13. Consensus

14. Florida’s Change Model Consensus Infrastructure Implementation

15. In the beginning None of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge All of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge necessary to participate in a Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Model

16. Over Time None of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge All of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge necessary to participate in a Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Model

17. Goal None of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge All of Beliefs, Skills, Knowledge necessary to participate in a Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Model

18. Why have past initiatives failed? • Purpose unclear • Lack of ongoing communication • Unrealistic expectations of initial success • Failure to measure and analyze progress • Participants not involved in planning… • School culture is ignored • Failure to achieve CONSENSUS

19. Consensus Building Educators will embrace new ideas when two conditions exist: • They understand the NEED for the idea • They perceive that they either have the SKILLS to implement the idea OR they have the SUPPORT to develop the skills

22. Guiding Questions • Did your beliefs change? • How consistent are the overall beliefs of your building with your building’s perceptions of the practices occurring? • To what extent do you believe that your building possesses the skills to use school-based data to evaluate Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction?

23. What is Consensus Building? A process that: • Shows people precisely what is being proposed and why • Gets people on the same page • Gives people time to explore and ask questions • Is open, honest, accurate • If done well, results in commitment and buy-in Tilly, 2007

24. Strategies for building consensus • Explain “the why” behind RtI - What we’ve been doing hasn’t worked - New practices are available - Accountability • Facilitate a shift in thinking • Provide a clear vision • Explain the scope and sequence

25. Strategies (cont.) • Provide a voice for all stakeholders • Find success stories • Look at school data • Provide professional development • Anticipate resistance & get it out in the open

28. Reactions to Guided Questions A lot of what we do isn’t consistent with our beliefs. What information do we need to share with staff to start changing practices? What skills do our staff members need?

29. Qualitative Insight: Consensus

30. Role of School Psychologist Strategy • Explain the Why • Shifts in Thinking • Facilitate overviews, trainings, serve on teams, meet w/ grps • Child-centered vs. alterable variables, Gen Ed vs. SPED, eligibility for SPED

31. Role of School Psychologist Strategy • Clear Vision/Scope and Sequence • Input from Stakeholders • Success Stories • Planned/systematic, involvement on team, do your homework, school-specific • Roundtables, team structure, exchange of ideas, communication • Team effort, internal and external, action plan

32. Role of School Psychologist Strategy • Use of school data • Professional Development • Anticipate Resistance • Expertise, guide others, desensitize, inservice • Study groups, data meetings, Showers’ work • Problem Solving model, address barriers

33. Systems Change Model Building Infrastructure

34. Infrastructure Building “…where sites examine their implementation against the critical components of RtI, find aspects that are being implemented well and gaps that need to be addressed. Infrastructure building centers around closing these practice gaps.” NASDSE (2008)

35. Conceptual Framework • School Building as unit of change • Change guided by use of key questions • NASDSE Blueprints • School Assessment of Problem-Solving Implementation (SAPSI) • Surveys on staff beliefs, practice, skills. • Build upon & coordination with consensus activities • Focus on team building, training & coaching, and alignment of resources

36. Team Building • School-based Leadership Team (SBLT) includes key stakeholders and roles: • Administrator/Resource agent • Facilitator • Data mentor(s) • Content Specialist(s) • Staff Liaison

37. PS/RtI Training 13 6-hour Sessions over 3 years. Days of training staggered for TA and Coaching activities between. School-based full-time coaches Technical assistance as needed by Regional Coordinators

38. What Skills Are Staff Reporting They Possess?

39. What Do the Data Mean? • Reflect what skills staff perceive they possess • Issues to consider • Self report tends to be upwardly biased • Responses can vary as a function of their understanding of what is being asked • Is there another way to assess skill development?

40. What Skills Are Educators Demonstrating?

41. Data Systems Foundation to all efforts towards effective PS/RtI Required to guide school change Focus on data already in use Guide School-Based Leadership Team (SBLT) to align services based on data. Use of PS as framework for decision-making.

42. Questions guiding infrastructure How will efforts towards implementing PS/RtI be monitored? How are staff involved? What assessments are in use and what is their role for use at your school? What resources are available for use? How aligned with student needs at each tier? How sufficient is your core services/programs/instruction? And for what student populations? Where needs exist with core, how will they be addressed? How will effectiveness of interventions at each tier be monitored? What professional development needs exist? And how addressed? What supplemental and intensive services/programs are available for use? How delivered? How will you determine which students require more intensive planning and supports?

45. Additional Strategies Development of protocols Developing consensus and communication channels between district and schools Resource Mapping Identifying staff professional development needs through referrals and staff input Infusing use of PS/RtI within existing school plans.

46. RC & Coaches Perspective on Infrastructure in Pilot Schools

47. Implementation

48. Implementation • Professional Development / Technical Assistance / Evaluation • District Leadership Teams • School Leadership Teams • Coaches • Staff • Problem Solving Process • Tiered Systems of Instructional Service Delivery • Data Collection & Analysis / Data Based Decision Making • Fidelity, Fidelity, Fidelity (or if you prefer, Integrity, Integrity, Integrity)

49. Implementation Questions • How will you launch and use the infrastructure you built? • How will PD be sequenced/scheduled/delivered? • How will students access the tiers? • How will data make it to/from the database? • How will decision makers access database?

50. Implementation Questions • Does your infrastructure do what you want it to do? • Did recipients of PD learn the concepts and skills taught? • Are teams engaging in a consistent problem solving process? • Does the database yield instructionally relevant information that is being utilized? • Are the tiers effective?