Elementary and Secondary RtI/MTSS
Distinctions and Common Threads
Ingham ISD Principal’s Academy
September, 2012
Our Path: Past, Present and Future
Where have we been?
• Unpacking the distinctions between “program
quality” measures and “outcome data”
– Program Quality: “Are we doing what we said we
would do”
– Outcome Data: “If we are doing what we said we
were going to do well, then is it having a positive
impact on our student outcome data?”
• Focused primarily on behavior program quality
measures
Where have we been?
• Reviewed alignment documents for the
Building Self Assessment (BSA) and the
MiBLSi data your buildings have been
collecting
• Delved into the bully-prevention legislation
(Matt’s Safe School Law)
• Begin to look at the reading program quality
measures (PET-R and SWEPT)
Where we are heading today…
• RtI to MTSS: Key Distinctions
– National perspective
– Elementary and secondary MTSS models
• Good instruction is good instruction regardless
of elementary or secondary MTSS models
Where are we going?
• Continue to deepen knowledge for analyzing
the data that is being collected
• Focus on increasing/refining implementation so
student outcomes continue to increase at
appropriate rates
• Focus on effective instruction methodologies to
improve student outcomes (math, reading,
social behavior)
RtI/MTSS Distinctions
RtI and MTSS
• Defining the acronyms:
– RtI: Response to Intervention
– MTSS: Multi-Tiered System of Supports
• Why the shift from RtI to MTSS?
– Perception of RtI being special education focused
– Many RtI models addressed only academic supports
– MTSS verbiage has been written into draft versions
of ESEA
MTSS: A National Perspective
• Emphasizes the following:
– Sustainable systems change
– Effective leadership at all levels
– Using reliable and valid data at all levels of the
system
– Developing local capacity
– Documenting the process and systems work
necessary to implement a continuum of supports
– Focus on fidelity
Good News!
• MiBLSi has always emphasized the importance
of developing systems to support the
implementation of evidence based curriculum,
instructional practices and assessment
• MiBLSi’s emphasis has always been on
prevention and developing local capacity
• The shift in the MiBLSi model underscores the
need to intentionally focus on leadership at all
levels of the system in order to ensure durable
implementation efforts
Good News!
• MTSS is heavily emphasized in the ESEA
Flexibility Waiver
• MiBLSi is referenced as a MTSS model that
districts can utilize to implement a MTSS model
Elementary vs. Secondary MTSS: Key
Distinctions
Acknowledgements
Reed, D. K.; Wexler, J.; Vaughn, S. (2012). RtI for reading at the secondary
level: Recommended literacy practices and remaining questions.
Guilford Press, New York.
RtI/MTSS at the Elementary Level
• Received a great deal of attention at the national level
• Addressed early literacy through federal efforts (e.g.
Reading First, NCLB)
• Research for evidence based reading instruction dates
back 25 years or longer
• Efforts to examine the delivery of instruction and
provide layers (tiers) of support that increases to
individualized instruction have been developed more
recently
Purpose of Layered Approaches
• Tighten up classroom instruction
• Ensure more students were provided evidence
based approaches to learning how to read
• Designed to use data to screen students early in
their educational career (and early in the school
year) to identify areas of need and to attach
interventions to address the needs
• Offered an alternative to qualifying students who
were in need of special education services
Thus, the role of RtI as a model to
prevent learning difficulties and
support students began at the
elementary level.
RtI/MTSS at the Secondary Level
• Considerably different than RtI/MTSS at the
elementary level
• Some indication the people responsible for
writing RtI into IDEA “considered whether or
how RtI would be implemented at the
secondary level” (Reed, Wexler, Vaughn, 2012)
RtI/MTSS at the Secondary Level
• Efforts to apply the elementary model (K-3) to
the secondary setting have occurred but
leaders who were designing secondary models
aligned them with effective elementary RtI
practices
• RtI/MTSS at the secondary level is very
different
Secondary RtI/MTSS Models
• Number of teachers who interact with students
– Elementary: 1 or 2
– Secondary: 5 or 6
• Scheduling:
– Elementary: mostly controlled by the classroom
teachers
– Secondary: more inherent challenges with
scheduling
• Core instruction:
– Elementary: primarily one teacher providing core
– Secondary: multiple teachers teaching core
Secondary RtI/MTSS Models
• Assessments:
– Elementary: use of Curriculum Based Measures
(CBM)
– Secondary: existing data (state level assessments,
core course assessments) are used as the basis of
screening data
• Focus:
– Elementary: prevention
– Secondary: remediation
Secondary RtI/MTSS Models
• Other distinctions:
– Graduation requirements
– Electives
• The logistical challenges surrounding
secondary schools has been a challenge for
designing large experimental studies looking
at the effectiveness of secondary RtI/MTSS
models
Good news! IISD has brought you
the most current research for
designing and supporting
RtI/MTSS models at the secondary
level.
Suggestion
• Possibly a book study to deepen our
knowledge using the one (or both) of the
following:
Reed, D. K.; Wexler, J.; Vaughn, S. (2012). RtI for reading at the secondary
level: Recommended literacy practices and remaining questions.
Guilford Press, New York.
Archer, A.; Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction. Corwin Press, New York.
Common Thread: High Quality Instruction
Activity
• Independently read each statement on the Anticipatory
Guide for “Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The
Case for Fully Guided Instruction”
• Fill in “Agree” or “Disagree” in the Before Reading (left
hand) column next to each statement
• Read the article, “Putting Students on the Path to
Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction”
• Go back and fill in “Agree” or “Disagree in the After
Reading (right hand) column next to each statement
• Identify three things that resonated with you in the
article. Take turns sharing with your table mates
When Does Instruction Need to be
Guided (Explicit)?
Explicit
Very low
background
knowledge
Implicit
Very high
background
knowledge
Experienced failure
in the past
Previous success
Guided (explicit) instruction not an
either/or. It is a matter of “when” to
use it.
Thank You!
Kim St. Martin
kimstmartin@me.com