Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) Thursday, May 14, 2014

Transcription

1 Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) Thursday, May 14, 2014

2 Agenda Introduction, State Level Policy Rhett Nelson, OSPI Graduation a Team Effort Krissy Johnson, OSPI Student Assistance In Practice: Franklin Pierce School District Bill Rasplica, Director of Learning Support Services

3 Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) A framework to help all students graduate from high school ready for career, college, and life.

4 MTSS A whole-school, data-driven, preventionbased framework for improving learning outcomes for EVERY student through a layered continuum of evidence-based practices and systems Integrates academic, social/behavioral, and dropout prevention interventions o Dropout Early Warning Systems o Positive Behavior Supports (PBIS) o Response to Intervention o Student Assistance Program

5 Components of MTSS Tiered Supports/Evidence-Based Interventions Data System Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring Continuous Improvement Processes

6 Tiered Supports MTSS rely on evidence-based practices that are appropriate to every students need through a tiered approach to intervention

7 Tier 1:All Tier 2: Some Tier 3: Few

8 Tiered Supports Tier 1: Prevention ALL students benefit from school-wide Tier I services and supports (such as core academic instruction and teaching behavioral expectations and social emotional skills) to be prepared for career, college, and life. Tier 2: Strategic Intervention SOME students benefit from additional Tier II services and supports (such as a reading or math intervention or behavioral check-in). These students are identified as at-risk for academic, behavioral, and/or mental health challenges, and require specific supports in addition to Tier I services. Tier 3: Intensive Intervention FEW students benefit from additional Tier III services and supports (such as those provided through community partnerships to address more profound academic, behavioral, or mental health needs). These students need case management and other support services in addition to Tier I services.

9 Data System Provides the foundation for data-based decision making process Detailed (who, what, when, where) o Academic: Student Information Systems course performance, interim assessments (EasyCBM, AIMSWeb), attendance o Behavior: Which students, classrooms, class periods, lunch? Math class?

10 Dropout Early Warning and Intervention System Goal of the data system: Early identification of at-risk youth Track intervention for efficacy and progress Requires: Access for key stakeholders Timely data use A process to identify root cause, and assign appropriate interventions

11 Early Warning Indicators A B C Attendance Behavior Course Work Others: Mobility, Health, non-data elements identified through counselors, teachers, students, staff, parents, and outside case managers.

12 Access for Key Stakeholders Who has access to the data? Where is the data stored? How recent is the data? Who is responsible for the data? What is the process to respond to the data? What support is provided for users?

13 Timely Data Use Time Annual Bi-Annual Monthly Weekly Student Information System (SIS) K-12 Warehouse/CEDARS Daily Tactical Strategic

14 Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring Universal screening is an assessment administered to all students, usually 3 times a year Used to evaluate quality, equity, and efficiency of universal instruction and support Used for goal setting, goal evaluation and signal where more intensive response may be necessary Progress monitoring is a process where student performance is examined frequently, usually on a weekly basis, to evaluate response to instruction and intervention Provides a basis for evaluating instructional programming as the instruction is occurring

15 Problem Solving Process Act: Act on evidence Plan: Clarify intended outcomes Study: Interpret evidence Do: Elicit evidence

16

17 Questions? Rhett Nelson, Communications OSPI, Graduation a Team Effort Rhett.Nelson@k12.wa.us Krissy Johnson, Program Supervisor OSPI, Student Assistance Krissy.Johnson@k12.wa.us

18 1 MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS IN THE FRANKLIN PIERCE SCHOOLS Student Support Conference May 14, 2015 William Rasplica Executive Director Learning Support Services

19 2 Franklin Pierce Facts 7,600 students 8 elementary schools All are Title 1 school-wide programs 2 middle schools and 2 comprehensive high schools Alternative programs 72% FRL 30% mobility rate Minority majority schools 35 languages and 8.5% ELL

20 3 Summary of Activities A meeting with Elementary Principals, Learning Support Services, and Teaching and Learning about CBM Dr. Jan Hasbrouck consults and 2013 Decision to start reading CBM in grades 1-5 and early literacy measures in K. AIMSweb adopted. District RTI committee established for elementary level 2007 Wayne Callendar supports individual buildings RTI implementation K-12 is included in the district improvement plan, 2008 K-5 reading pathways consensus Elementary committee begins math RTI discussion, Dr. Rebecca Zumeta consults on math MTSS/RTI, 2012 Dr. Mark Shinn consults with FPS 2005 and District-level behavior and academic MTSS teams, 2014

21 4 Franklin Pierce and MTSS/RTI National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) Washington State, one of eight states, to sign a MOU with NCRTI for technical assistance. WA State developed a cadre of trainers. NCRTI Training Modules MTSS/RTI included in the District Improvement Plan, 2008 Six FP schools included in the National Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices in Elementary School Reading. Congressionally mandated study by IES

22 5 UWT Project RTI 5 year federal grant to restructure UWT teacher prep Dual-track program Establishes 4 partner schools in Franklin Pierce 4-5 teacher interns per school OSPI participation for 2 years Each partner school receives $14,000 NCRTI integrity rubric

23 6 OSEP Investing In Innovation (i3) Grant with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) Using DBI for Intensive Interventions to Improve Mathematics Skills of Students With Disabilities and Students Needing Intensive Instruction 2.1 million dollars over three years Training and Support in Implementing Data- Based Individualization (DBI) 8 elementary schools will be split into 2 cohorts 80 students included in the study

24 7

25 8 Effect Size In statistics, an effect size is a measure of the strength of a phenomenon.

26 Hattie s Dashboard 9

27 What Impacts Student Achievement? Effective Teaching Variable Effect Size Effective and Not Effective Variables 10 Effect Size Student Expectations Direct Instruction Response to Intervention Formative Evaluation Socioeconomic Status Parental Involvement Reciprocal Teaching Computer-Based Instruction Feedback Aptitude by Treatment Interactions Teacher Clarity Whole Language Teacher-Student Relationships Retention John Hattie, Visible Learning, 2009 and Visible Learning For Teachers, 2012

28 Why RTI/MTSS? Sustained improvements in academic performance Decreased expulsion, behavioral referral and suspension rates Decreased inappropriate special education referral and placement rates National Center on Response to Intervention 11

29 RTI/MTSS as a Preventive Framework RTI is a multi-level instructional framework aimed at improving outcomes for ALL students. RTI is preventive and provides immediate support to students who are at-risk for poor learning outcomes. RTI may be a component of a comprehensive evaluation for students with learning disabilities. National Center on Response to Intervention 12

30 Essential RTI Components Screening Progress Monitoring School-wide, Multi-level Prevention System Primary Level (a.k.a. Level 1, Core instruction for all) Secondary Level (a.k.a. Level 2, Strategic instruction) Tertiary Level (a.k.a. Level 3, Intensive instruction) Data-Based Decision Making for: Instruction Movement within the multi-level system Disability identification (in accordance with state law) National Center on Response to Intervention 13

31 Potential of MTSS Frameworks for School Improvement MTSS Framework Regularly identifying instructional needs through the collection of student progress data Selecting appropriate practices from research that have demonstrated the greatest potential Through a process of continuous improvement, school staff are able to make refinements in services that promote student success. 14 Todd Glover in, The Promise of Response to Intervention: Evaluating Current Science and Practice

32 15 FPS Decision Rules 80% rule If less than 80% of all students are meeting benchmarks, review of core instruction as needed. 20% rule Students below the 20 th percentile in academic skills are placed in small group instruction. Change small group or individual instruction rule: PM data are below the aimline on 4 consecutive days or six or more data points produce a flat or decreasing trend line, school staff should change or intensify the intervention. Tier 3 instruction rule: Tier 3 instruction begins when a student fails to progress after two Tier 2 interventions

33 16

34 17 Progress Monitoring Rules Tier Time Frame Goal Material CAP Outcome PM Frequency IEPs IEP Annual Review Date Individualized to Reduce the Gap Significantly Reduces the Gap/Local Norms 1-2 Times per Week Tier 3 End of school year Expected grade level Significantly reduces the gap/local norms 1 time per week Tier 2 End of the school year Expected grade level Reduces the gap/local norms Monthly or 2 times per month Tier 1 End of school year Expected grade level Passing state assessment Benchmark screening

35 Frequency of Progress Monitoring Similar results found by Fuchs & Fuchs (1986) National Center on Response to Intervention 18

36 RTI/MTSS Checkpoint Days Held Every 6-8 Weeks Subs for Support Staff (Title I Learning Specialists Reading and Math, Resource Room Teacher, and ELL Teacher) 3 Roving Subs for Classroom Teachers (1 Hour per Grade Level 30 Minutes for Reading, 30 Minutes for Math) Formal Protocol

37 20 Norm-Referenced: Box and Whisker Graphs 90 th %tile 10 th %tile 75 th %tile 50 th %tile 25 th %tile

38 A Significant Performance Discrepancy (Educational Need) That Requires Powerful Intervention Severe Educational Need Consider Tier 3 ASAP 21

39 This Student HAS a Performance Discrepancy Potentially Severe Educational N

40 Triage to Appropriate Intervention Consider Tier 2 Consid er Tier 3

41 Elementary Triage Consider Tier 2 Consid er Tier 3

42 Middle School Triage < 25th Consider Tier 2 <10th Consider Tier 3

43 High School Triage Example End-of Grade 7 Minimum Reading Proficiency Standard Student Performance Significantly Discrepant from End-of-Grade 7 Standard

44 Measuring The Progress Discrepancy Expected ROI to Significantly Reduce the Gap Actual ROI NOW Reducing the Gap

45 28 Determining Appropriate Instruction Designs effective, standards-based instruction; Delivers high-quality, student centered instruction; Promotes high levels of student engagement; Uses assessment data for student learning; Uses a positive behavior management strategy; Has clear evidence students are learning. Source: R. MacGregor, the Essential Practices of High Quality Teaching and Learning, 2007.

46 29 U of Oregon Center for Teaching and Learning (Thomas-Beck, 2006) Research-based Instruction: Models instructional tasks when appropriate Provides explicit instruction Engages students in meaningful interactions with language Provides multiple opportunities for students to practice Provides corrective feedback and initial student responses Encourages student effort Students are engaged in the lesson during teacher-led instruction Students are engaged in the lesson during independent work Students are successfully completing activities to high criterion levels of performance

47 30 Effective Instruction (Hattie, 2009) Synthesized several meta-analyses: Active and guided instruction (e.g. direct instruction)is more effective than approaches that passively facilitate a student s learning (e.g. discovery learning).

48 Why is Fidelity Important? Research suggests that positive student outcomes depend on the degree to which interventions are supported by evidence fidelity of implementation of process (at the school level) fidelity of intervention implementation (at teacher/classroom level) (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2008) National Center on Response to Intervention 31

49 32 District Wide MTSS Committees Academic To build a consistent, effective MTSS across all schools, we will: Articulate clear expectations Define priorities and protocols Provide Training and Support Monitor Implementatio n Review Data regularly Team make up: Building Reps (14) Admin., teachers, counselors, ICs, psychs Shared Leader ship Assistan t Sup., LSS, Teachin g and Learnin g Behavioral To build a consistent, effective MTSS system across all schools, we will: Articulate clear expectations Define priorities and protocols Provide Training and Support Monitor Implementation Review Data regularly Team make up: Tom Edwards (co-leader), Building Reps (14) Admin., teachers, counselors, ICs, psychs

50 A district-wide team will: Provide leadership Provide support Provide common language/syste m cohesion Role of the building reps: Accountability Professional Participate development Communicate Provide leadership Facilitate

51 District Behavior MTSS Team Year 1 In Review Foundations Audit District Initiatives 3:1 Positive/Corrective Interaction Ratio Early Stage Interventions

52 Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Screener Intervention Screener Intervention Screener Intervention Screener Intervention Failing Required Course(s) Freshmen Success Failing Required Course(s) Sophomor e Success Tier 2 Academicall y After- School Interventio n Failing Required Course(s) Senior Success Failing 2+ Required Course(s) & Attendance Why Try Failing 3 or More Courses Academic Interventio n Off Track for Graduation Junior Check and Connect At Risk for Graduation ( credits) Senior Check and Connect Failing 3 or More Courses Academic Interventio n Failing 3 or More Courses Academic Interventio n Failing 3 or More Courses Academic Interventio n Tier 3: Targeted Individual s At Risk for Graduation Alternative Lunch Options Off Track for Graduation (< 14.5 credits) Alternativ e Lunch Options Note: Counselors may arrange a Staffing for students who continually fail 3+ classes (9 th -12 th grade). Tier 2: Targeted Groups Tier 1: School- Wide Response to Intervention

53 36 Franklin Pierce Schools success School Brookdale Elementary Central Ave. Elementary Christensen Elementary Elmhurst Elementary James Sales Elementary Harvard Elementary Franklin Pierce High School Achievement High Progress in Math English Language Acquisition 4 Time School of Distinction Reading and Math Growth English Language Acquisition English Language Acquisition School of Distinction School of Distinction High Progress School of Distinction

54 37

55 38

56 2013 On-Time Grad Rates by Sub-Group 90% 78.5% 83% 80% 81% 73% 76% 60% 63% 64% ALL STUDENTS FPHS/WHS NATIVE AM ASIAN/PAC IS BLACK/AFR AM LATINO/HISPANIC MULTI-RACIAL SPED LIMITED ENGLISH LOW INCOME

57 2014 On-Time Grad Rates by Sub-Group 80% 87% 83% 80% 67% 70% 68% 60% 64% 73%

58 Percent of 4 th Graders in Special Education Meeting Math Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

59 Percent of 4 th Graders in Special Education Meeting Writing Standard % 90.00% 80.00% State 70.00% Bainbridge Island 60.00% Franklin Pierce 50.00% Issaquah 40.00% Mercer Island 30.00% Vashon Island 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

60 Percent of Low Income 4 th Graders Meeting Reading Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

61 Percent of Low Income 4 th Graders Meeting Math Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

62 Percent of Low Income 4 th Graders Meeting Writing Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

63 Percent of Low Income 7 th Graders Meeting Reading Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

64 Percent of Low Income 7 th Graders Meeting Math Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

65 Percent of Low Income 7 th Graders Meeting Writing Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

66 Percent of Low Income 10 th Graders Meeting Reading Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

67 Percent of Low Income 10 th Graders Meeting Writing Standard % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% State Bainbridge Island Franklin Pierce Issaquah Mercer Island Vashon Island 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% MSP MSP MSP MSP

68 51

69 52 Example: Importance of Fidelity This video highlights the implementation of a fidelity checklist in a surgery. The film shows the importance of having a way to confirm that practices were followed Despite findings suggesting the benefits there was initial resistance to the checklists from surgeons

70 53 Moving the Indicators Existing System Existing System is Changed to Support the Effectiveness of the Innovation Effective Innovations are Changed to Fit the System Effective Innovation Fixsen et al. 2005

71 54 Implementation in the Context of Community Each attempted implementation of evidencebased practices and programs presents an opportunity to learn more about the program itself and the conditions under which it can be used with fidelity and good effect. Dean Fixsen et al, Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature, 2005.

72 Questions. 55