Implementation at the District Level

1
Implementation at the District Level

• Problem Solving/RtI
• in
• Indian Prairie District 204

Directors Conference, 2007 Christine Martin
2

Special thanks to the following contributors

• Illinois ASPIRE
• NASDSE
• Dr. George Batsche
• Dr. Mark Shinn
• Dr. David Prasse
• Dr. David Tilly
• Jeff Grimes
• Heartland AEA 11
• Dr. Judy Hackett
• Dr. Tim Thomas
• Dr. Madi Phillips Dr. Sue Gallagher
• District 204 leadership, coaches, staff

3
What is Problem Solving?
Previous Policy Process-Driven Outcomes Lacking
Future Experience Full Implementation
Current Policy Outcomes-Driven All Students
Problem Solving Model
incorporates
for
and
with
Data-Based Decision Making
uses
3-Tier Model
Scientifically-Based Interventions
Scientifically-Based Data Systems
4
Indian Prairie Community Unit School District 204

• Chicago Suburban Unit School District
• 29,000 students across 31 buildings
• 3800 students identified special education
• Over 100 languages spoken in our students homes
• 1,948 certified staff members

5
IPSD 204's Progression into Problem Solving/RtI
2003-04 Building administrators had opportunity
to attend introductory trainings
2004-05 4 buildings opted to be pilot sites for
implementation
2005-06 Board of Education wrote Problem
Solving/RtI into the district goals
7 additional buildings began implementation 10
additional buildings began universal
screening 23 additional buildings began
progress monitoring
2006-07 Rest of buildings pre-K through high
school received training All buildings pre-K
through middle school implementing All
buildings pre-K through middle school universal
screening All buildings K-high school progress
monitoring
6
Board Goal 1 2005-2006

• Implement a systematic, problem-solving model
  that is based on a continuous improvement cycle
  of instruction, assessment, strategies, and
  interventions.

7
Current Experience RTI/Problem Solving
How do we get there?
includes
Training
to create changes in
Process, Eligibility, Intervention
involves
by looking at
Data
Changing Roles
8
includes
Training
Whole staff training during SIP Institute days
3 days in advanced concepts
Additional staff development only as building
sees need
9
District Level
supported by
Leadership Team Coaches
Student Services Curriculum/Instruction
coordinate Write common goals, Develop
strategic plan
PS Leadership meetings (asst superintendents,
curriculum directors, supervisors, district
coaches)

• District Level Problem Solving Coaches
• Ongoing staff development Support

Year 1 0.5 FTE Year 2 1.6 FTE Year 3 2.7
FTE
10
Coaching provides . . .

• Push-in, continuing staff development
• Intervention Technology support
• Model-Lead-Test of concepts taught
• through training
• Accountability for quality implementation
• Fidelity of process, assessments, interventions
• Moral support

11
supported by
Leadership Team Coaches
Building Level

• Principal Leadership
• Setting building goals
• Advocating for needed support
• Providing incentive for change

• Building Level Coaches
• During 1st year buildings designate 2 staff
  volunteers
• as internal coaches support
  staff/general ed (no FTE)
• Building coaches meet with district coaches
  monthly

12
involves
All job descriptions were re-written now
include Problem Solving
Changing Roles
Focus is on skill sets rather than job title
Melding of remedial programs with special
education
Every child is Everyones responsibility no
more my student/your student
Use of data for decision making
13
by looking at
Accountability Data ISAT/PSAT
Data
Universal Screening Data CBM,
SWIS, et al.
Strategic Monitoring Progress Monitoring Data
CBM, SWIS, et al.
Diagnostic Data ISEL, Rigby, FBA, et al.
Process Outcomes - implementation integrity
Attitudes/Perceptions Outcomes
14
IPSD PS Framework
15
School Status Report
Full scale use of RTI
Problem Solving Process
Data Systems
Begin Tier 2/3 diagnostics performance vs skill
deficit
Resources Research-Based Interventions
16
School Status Report
17
School Status Report - Above Target on R-CBM
Year 1




Benchmarked only at-risk students in Fall of
Year 1
Year 3
Year 2
18
Social Behavioral Outcomes
PBIS/SWIS data - office referrals location,
teacher, time,
behavior,
motivation, consequence,
referrals per day/month sort
by demographic groups
Behavior Support Plan data
19
School Status Report
Process Outcomes - implementation integrity
20
School Status Report
Attitudes/Perceptions Outcomes
Staff Survey
21
School Status Report
22
SIP Example
23
(No Transcript)
24
to create changes in
Building Leadership/SIP Team Meetings
Process, Intervention, Eligibility
Grade Level Data Meetings
Individual Problem Solving Meetings (including
IEP meetings)
25
Decision Rules
Determine students below target criterion
Are over 15-20 of peers in general education
below target?
Examine curriculum, instruction,
environment, and/or system for needed adaptations.
Are between 5 and 20 of peers in general
education below target?
Develop small group intervention(s)
Are 5 or fewer of peers in general education
below target?
Develop individual intervention(s)
Adapted from Heartland Manual (2006) www.ilispa.or
g under RtI Resources
26
Team Problem Solving Team Date Define
Problem Why is it happening? (analysis/hypothesi
s) Data Support Goal What are we going to
do to reach the goal? (IPF?) How are we
going to monitor progress? Outcome?
1. DEFINE THE PROBLEM Is there a problem? What is
it?
4. Evaluate Did our plan work?
2. Analyze Why is it happening?
3. Develop a Plan What shall we do about it?
5
80
15
27
TIER 3
TIER 2
TIER 1
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies Text Talk
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies
District 204 Literacy Curriculum Scholastic Red
Blue Trophies

K 1 2 3 4 5
Indian Prairie District 204 Reading Materials by
Tier
28
www.illinoisaspire.org/north under documents
29
Response to Intervention
IDEA 04 method of special education entitlement
Only purpose of assessment is to assist in
intervention development
30
Required Questions Educational Progress (ROI)

• How does this individuals actual rate of skill
  acquisition compare to the expected rate of skill
  acquisition?
• What is the frequency, intensity and duration of
  the behavior? (this question is required for a
  behavioral concern. The question may not apply
  to some concerns.)
• Have the intervention(s) been developed,
  implemented, and monitored with integrity?
• Under what conditions did the individual
  experience the most growth?

(adapted from Iowa Dept. of Ed, 2005 FSDS, 2006)
31
Compare District ROI to Student ROI

• 2nd grade District ROI for R-CBM 0.9wrc/week
• Student ROI is 0.46 wrc/week
• Student ROI of 0.46 wrc/wk lt District ROI of 0.9
  wrc/wk

32
Scientifically-Based Intervention

• Scientifically-Based Intervention used
• Core Horizons (135 minutes daily)
• 45 minutes/day beyond whats typical for gen ed
  2nd graders
• Horizons much more intensive than is typical of
  gen ed 2nd graders in IPSD204

33
Intervention Integrity

• Check one of the following
• Interviews with implementors
• Observations of the intervention
• Written documentation by implementor
• implementation survey completed bi-weekly
• Based on the above
• Intervention was implemented as planned and/or
  modified in this manner _Intervention was
  implemented as planned_____________

X
X
34
Growth

• Under what conditions did student experience the
  most growth?
• Student has experienced more growth with
• Core Horizons intervention than with Core
• alone. However, ROI is still much below
• expected growth. Team needs to continue
• to find intervention that will accelerate ROI.

35
Required Questions Discrepancy

• What are the multiple sources of data that
  demonstrate the individuals performance is
  significantly discrepant from that of peers or
  expected standards?
• How does the individuals current level of
  performance compare to that of typical
• peers or expected standards?
• What is the magnitude of the discrepancy? (Meets
  Dist 204 significant discrepancy definition?.)
• How important and significant is this
  discrepancy?
• (Meaningful in a practical sense and reliable in
  a statistical sense.)

(adapted from Iowa Dept. of Ed, 2005 FSDS, 2006)
36
IPSD Discrepancy Criteria
37
Example
38
Discrepant
39
Discrepancy B
1 readers response 2 Harcourt end of
unit test 3 main idea worksheet
40
Discrepancy C
215
191
185
172
Minimum score required to meet standards
41
Discrepancy D
students score confidence interval
Below 16th Percentile
42
Required Questions Instructional Need

• What, if any, ecological variables contribute to
  the interventions/ accommodations/modifications
  not enhancing the individuals performance?
  Explain.
• What are the individuals needs in the areas of
  instruction, curriculum, and environment?
• What are the instructional strategies,
  accommodations, and modifications that will
  enable the individuals learning performance to
  improve?
• What accommodations and modifications were
  provided which enhanced the individuals
  performance and allowed opportunity to acquire
  educationally relevant skills?
• What is the pervasiveness of the area of concern
  across settings and time?
• What ongoing, substantial, additional services
  are needed that cannot be provided by general
  education?
• What instructional skills need to be taught?

(adapted from Iowa Dept. of Ed, 2005 FSDS, 2006)
43
Ongoing

• Unlikely to be remediated within 6 months even
  with intensive, substantial, additional
  instruction
• Likely that team would need to give up at least
  one area of instruction (science, social studies,
  etc.) in order to close the gap with general
  education students within 1-2 years
• Skill deficits persist across settings methods
  of output.

44
Substantial

• S-B Intervention requires materials/ instruction
  thats more than one grade level below grade
  placement expectations (except K/1st)
• S-B Intervention needed to close the gap requires
  narrowing the focus of the curriculum
• Passes the stranger test in looking different
  from general education

45
Additional

• Evidence that the student continues to receive
  instruction in the big ideas of grade placement
  curriculum
• Evidence that the student receives more allocated
  instructional time than gen ed peers in area(s)
  of concern
• Evidence that additional instructional time
  includes direct, explicit instruction in skill
  deficits

46
Example of Instructional Need Additional
47
Some Preliminary RESULTS
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
Celebration!
At the District Level 4 out of 5 grade levels
have improved
51
(No Transcript)
52
Whole District 1st Grade
Celebration!
Our 1st grade special education students as a
group improved at the same rate as the target
Our 1st grade general education students as a
group improved at a higher rate than the target
Next Steps
Closing the gap
53
Patterson 1st Grade
Celebration!
Both general education and special education
students improved at a much higher rate than the
target
Special education students improved at a rate
equal to general education students
54
Georgetown 2nd Grade Title 1 School Did not
meet AYP last year for sp ed subgroup
Celebration!
Both general education and special education
students improved at a higher rate than the
target
Special education students improved at a faster
rate than general education students
55
Opportunities for follow-up . . .
IPSD 204 ASPIRE Visitation Dates October 1,
2007 December 3, 2007 February 4, 2008 April 21,
2008
Leadership Howie Crouse, retired
superintendent Dr. Judy Hackett, former asst.
superintendent Dr. Stephen Daeschner,
superintendent Kathy Duncan, asst. superintendent
curr/instr. Sharon Tate, asst. superintendent st.
serv. Kathy Birkett, asst superintendent
educ. Diane Fleischel, director of special
ed. Dr. Patrick Nolten, director
research/assessment