Foundations for A Problem Solving, School-Wide Model Rhode Island Technical Assistance Project Summer Institute July 24 and 25, 2003 Correspondence about this presentation should be directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131. Email is dtilly@aea11.k12.ia.us, (515) 270-9030. Overview of PS, SWM Objectives Communicate major components of a problem solving, school wide model Provide an integrative picture of the STRUCTURE Example effectiveness data on model implementation Provide a picture of the PROCESS of getting it all in place Begin to consider application in your setting Keep Our Eye on The Prize 100 Percent of our students proficient by the year ’13’14 Vocabulary – Convergence of Thinking Problem Solving Model (PS): Proposed, implemented and refined since the early ’80s in special education as an alternative system to the traditional Refer-Test-Place system. It encompasses both general education and special education systems. Initially was individual student focused. Response To Intervention (RTI) – Also called a Standard Treatment Approach (STA): Being proposed by researchers across the country as an alternative method for identifying individuals with Learning Disabilities. An opportunity to link IDEA thinking with NCLB thinking. School-Wide Model (SWM): An integrative way of thinking logically and rationally about meeting All childrens’ needs in a school. It represents a promising way for schools to comprehensively draw together and allocate their resources to meet childrens’ educational needs. Important Point They are not different The represent different spins on the same core thinking by different people The same “big components” are there We will attempt to use these terms with precision for clarity sake Important Point! Everything from here on out represents guidelines, not absolutes The problems are the same everywhere you go The principals for solving them are the same The SPECIFICS will be different in your setting Your solutions will differ from our solutions!!!!!! PS, RTI, School Wide Model What it is Represents a way of: What it is not A panacea Using data to examine the system in relation to most important results. Structuring thinking so that we don’t miss anything A curriculum, an intervention, one theoretical orientation Identifying strategies with a high probability of improving student performance and knowing if they work One size fits all Keeping our attention focused on the most important things Hoops to jump through Common sense into practice (cf. Fullan) Easier than what came before Quote We have witnessed over the last 30 years numerous attempts at planned educational change. The benefits have not nearly equaled the costs, and all too often, the situation has seemed to worsen. We have, however, gained clearer and clearer insights over this period about the do’s and don’ts of bringing about change….One of the most promising features of this new knowledge about change is that successful examples of innovation are based on what might be most accurately labeled “organized common sense.” (Fullan, 1991, p. xi-xii) Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY : Teachers College Press. The Marriage of Problem Solving and School-Wide Models The Problem Solving Approach Level IV Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem IEP Consideration Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team • Define the Problem Level II Consultation with Other Resources Level I Consultation Between Teachers-Parents • Develop a Plan • Evaluate • Implement Plan INTENSITY OF PROBLEM If you teach the same curriculum, to all students, at the same time, at the same rate, using the same materials, with the same instructional methods, with the same expectations for performance and grade on a curve you have fertile ground for growing special education. Gary Germann, 2003 The Problem Solving Process • Define the Problem (Screening and Diagnostic Assessments) What is the problem and why is it happening? • Develop a Plan • Evaluate (Goal Setting and Planning) (Progress Monitoring Assessment) What are we going to do? Did our plan work? • Implement Plan (Treatment Integrity) Carry out the intervention The Problem Solving Approach Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem Initial Instruction Level IV IEP Consideration Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team Level II Consultation with Other Resources Level I Consultation Between Teachers-Parents INTENSITY OF PROBLEM Level One Consultation Between Teacher and Parent • Define the Problem Informal discussion focusing on behaviors of concern • Evaluate Parent and teacher determine effectiveness and need for additional resources Teacher • Develop a Plan Parent Anecdotal documentation • Implement Plan Parent and teacher gather information and monitor The Problem Solving Approach Strategic Instruction/ Intervention Level IV Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem IEP Consideration Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team Level II Consultation with Other Resources Level I Consultation Between Teachers-Parents INTENSITY OF PROBLEM Level Two Strategic Instruction: Consultation with Other Resources • Define the Problem -Available Screenings -Further definition of the problem Teacher • Evaluate -Data used to evaluate progress -Success determined • Develop a Plan BAT Building Assistance Team Parent • Implement Plan -Team offers strategies -Solutions generated -Plan written - Team assists with implementation - Data collected from naturally occurring sources if possible Level Three Strategic Instruction: Consultation with Extended Problem Solving Team • Define the Problem -Identify concern -Define behavior of concern -Problem validation • Evaluate Teacher -Problem analysis -Functional assessment -Write problem statement • Develop a Plan -Generate possible solutions -Data analyzed to BAT AEA -Evaluate solutions determine effectiveness -Select a solution -Success determined by -Collect baseline data rate of progress & size of -Set a goal discrepancy Parent -Write action plan -Recycle or determine -Select measurement strategy need to consider -Develop plan to evaluate entitlement for special effectiveness • Implement Plan education -Implement according to written plan -Ongoing systematic data collection -Follow-up as needed The Problem Solving Approach Level IV Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem IEP Consideration Level III Consultation With Extended Problem Solving Team Level II Consultation with Other Resources Level I Consultation Between Teachers-Parents Intensive Instruction INTENSITY OF PROBLEM Level Four Intensive Instruction: Intervention and Entitlement Consideration (Due Process) • Define the Problem -Identify additional areas of concern -Develop assessment questions Teacher • Evaluate -Success determined by rate of progress and size of discrepancy -Plan rewritten once per year or as often as data indicates the need -Collect additional data necessary for entitlement decision BAT AEA Parent • Develop a Plan -Using all data gathered at all levels problem solving , determine if appropriate interventions and whether or not special education services are needed. -Team develops IEP • Implement Plan -Implement according to IEP -Ongoing systematic data collection -Instructional changes made as needed Some Characteristics Works in important student performance domains Academics Reading Math Science Writing Social, emotional and behavioral development Works for large groups, small groups and individuals Consistent logic set is used throughout Elements of an Effective Model Set of goals Valid and reliable assessment system to monitor progress Adoption of research proven materials and programs Adequate, prioritized instructional time Differentiated instruction, grouping, and scheduling Strong instructional leaders maintaining focus and establishing support mechanisms An integrated system of research-based professional development and resource allocation. Adapted from Kame’enui and Simmons Acknowledgments The triangle for resource allocation comes from a number of different places Mental Health (Adelman and Taylor) Social, Emotional and Behavioral Development (Sugai and Horner) Curriculum and Instruction (Kame’enui and Simmons) The School Wide Model School-Wide Systems for Student Success Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Intensive, Individual Interventions •Individual Students •Assessment-based •High Intensity •Of longer duration 1-5% 5-10% Targeted Group Interventions •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response Universal Interventions •All students •Preventive, proactive 80-90% 1-5% Intensive, Individual Interventions •Individual Students •Assessment-based •Intense, durable procedures 5-10% Targeted Group Interventions •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response 80-90% Universal Interventions •All settings, all students •Preventive, proactive Why use a School-Wide Approach? The best way to address problems is to prevent them before they happen Achievement of all students is everyone’s responsibility within a school. Early intervention to promote success is critical to future school achievement. Early intervention requires accurate identification of children at risk for failure. Assessment, instruction, and meaningful outcomes for students must be aligned. Why use a School-Wide Approach? Some students will require intensive interventions. Assessment data will be needed to determine resources needed to address concerns. Ongoing monitoring should direct instructional decisions and be repeated with the frequency needed for timely interventions. “No matter how great the idea or how compelling the research, if an intervention is not working, something must change.” Foundations Activity #1a Identify a person at your table to work with Look in your activity packet, turn to Foundations activity #1a Brainstorm a list things you remember about a PS, School wide model from the presentation. What stood out most for you? Why is it important? Activity 1b Come together at your table. Discuss: How is the problem solving/school wide model similar to service delivery in your school today? How do the models differ from the service delivery model in your school today? What questions arise at this point for your group? Write them down, put them on the parking lot. Problem Solving and the School-Wide Model in Practice H eartland Early Literacy Project “Helping Children Read ...Helping Teachers Teach” Four Organizing Principles Earlier rather than later -Prevention and early intervention are supremely more effective and efficient than later intervention and remediation for ensuring reading success. Four Organizing Principles Schools, not just programs -Prevention and early intervention must be anchored to the school as the host environment and primary context for improving student outcomes. Four Organizing Principles Evidence, not opinion -Prevention and early intervention pedagogy, programs, instruction and materials should be based on trustworthy scientific evidence. Four Organizing Principles Each and All-- To teach all children to read, we must teach each child to read. Kame’enui, E. and Simmons, D. (2002) University of Oregon, Beginning Reading Institute We’re aiming to help children establish trajectories toward success High Trajectory- “the path a projectile makes under the action of given forces such as thrust, wind and gravity.” --Encarta World English Dictionary Low P K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 + Assessment and Instructional Grouping Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 Score Time Benchmark 3 Assessment and Instructional Grouping Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 Score Time Benchmark 3 What Does the School-Wide Model Look Like? Key Features of HELP DIBELS Student interventions based on response to instruction Benchmark Strategic Intensive Ongoing Monitoring Instructional changes based on data Literacy Team Administrative support Continuous School Improvement Assess Needs Evaluation Planning Implementation and Monitoring Five Stages to Implementation Stage One Conduct School Audit Assess Student Performance Assess Needs Evaluation Planning Implementation Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons Conduct a School Audit Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective SchoolWide Reading Programs Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons Assess Student Performance Benchmark assessments 3 times per year for all students Ongoing monitoring for strategic students once per month Ongoing monitoring for intensive students once per week Literacy team assisting teachers in providing instruction guided by data Stage Two Analyze School and Student Performance Identify Reading Priorities Identify Students who require Assess Needs Benchmark Intervention Strategic Intervention Evaluation Intensive Intervention Planning Implementation Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons Intensive Interventions 5% Strategic Interventions 15% Core Curriculum 80% Adapted from: Sugai and Horner Stage Three Design Core Instructional Interventions Customize Intensive and Strategic Interventions Assess Needs Evaluation Planning Implementation Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction to Achieve Instructional Priorities Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction to Achieve Instructional Priorities Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons A Consumer’s Guide To Evaluating a Core Reading Program Grades K-3: A Critical Elements Analysis Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons Stage Four Establish and Implement Progress Monitoring System Customize Progress Monitoring System for Intensive and Strategic Interventions Assess Needs Planning Evaluation Implementation Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons First Grade Benchmark Goals (Working Backwards) Established Reader by Spring of First Grade if you hit 40 or more correct on Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring of first grade you are an established reader. Established Alphabetic Principle by Winter of First Grade if you hit 40 or more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in winter of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or more correct on Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Reading in spring of first grade. Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione Kindergarten Benchmark Goals: Established Phonological Awareness by Spring of Kindergarten if you hit 35 to 45 correct on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in spring of K/fall of first grade, the odds are in your favor to hit 40 or more correct on Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) in winter of first grade. Established Initial Sounds (Onset) Phonological Awareness by Winter of Kindergarten if you hit 25 - 35 correct on Onset Recognition Fluency (OnRF) in winter of K, the odds are in your favor to reach 35 to 45 correct on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) in spring of K. Roland H. Good and Cheri Cornachione Stage Five Evaluate School Level Performance Intensify Intervention Assess Needs Evaluation Planning Implementation Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons How are we doing? Components of Successful School Implementation of HELP Administrative Support Link to School Improvement Adequate Time for Staff Development Materials Data Collection by Teachers Data Interpretation and Understanding Instruction Guided by Data Cross-year box plots phonological awareness Kindergarten Heartland Students 2001-2002 Beginning: Middle: 4393 End: 4590 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4336 End: 4331 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1832 End: 2108 Cross-year box plots oral reading fluency First Grade Heartland Students : Legend 2001=2002 Beginning: Middle: 4427 End: 4412 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4036 End: 4151 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1595 End: 1879 Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Kindergarten Across 36 School Buildings 70 Number of New SPED Placements 60 50 55% Reduction in Kindergarten New SPED Placements Insert K Placement Data 40 30 20 10 0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 School Year 00-01 01-02. Prior to HELP Mean HELP Implementation Mean Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placments: First Grade Across 36 Schools 80 Prior to HELP Mean HELP Implementation Mean Number of New Special Education Placements 70 60 Insert 1 Placement Data 50 40 30 27% Reduction in First-Grade New Special Education Placements 20 10 0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 School Year 00-01 01-02. Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Second Grade for 36 Schools Number of New Special Education Placements 120 Prior to HELP Mean HELP Implementation Mean 100 80 60 40 24% Reduction in SecondGrade SPED Placements 20 0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 School Year 00-01 01-02. Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Third-Grade for 36 Schools 350 Prior to HELP Mean HELP Implementation Mean Number of New Special Education Placements 300 250 200 150 8% Reduction in Third-Grade New SPED Placements 100 50 0 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 School Year 00-01 01-02. Punch Line Table 1. Z-Score Growth For Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 1999-2002. Mean Z Score Median Z Score Number of Scores Low Z Score High Z Score Yr1-Yr2 Z Score 0.71 Yr 1- Yr 3 Z Scores 1.08 0.70 1.25 85 -3.76 3.93 36 -0.77 3.29 Punch Line Table 2. Z-Score Growth For Oral Reading Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 2002-2003. Yr1-Yr2 Z Score Yr 1- Yr 3 Z scores Mean Z Score 0.26 0.39 Median Z Score 0.32 0.36 86 32 Low Z Score -2.15 -0.68 High Z Score 2.49 2.47 Number of Scores Foundations Activity #2 Leave your stuff, take your activity handout, get up and find a new table. Rule for new table: no one from your current table should be there. Sit down. Introduce yourself. At your new table discuss your answers to the following questions: If we implemented a system of early intervention similar to this in all of our schools, what implications might it have for Teachers? Administrators? Parents? NCLB Implementation? IDEA Implementation? At risk students? Students with disabilities? Talented and Gifted Students? Secondary Students?