Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Secondary Schools and

Teacher Buy In

Matthew Burns, Ph.D.

WHERE ARE YOU?

RTI = MTSS

The use of assessment data to most efficiently allocate in order to enhance for all students.

Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006

MTSS and Problem-Solving

Mea

sure

men

t Pre

cisi

on Measurem

ent Frequency

Problem-Analysis

TIER I

TIER I I

TIER III

Problem Solving• Tier I – Identify discrepancy between

expectation and performance for class or individual (Is it a classwide problem?)

• Tier II – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify category of problem. (What is the category of the problem?)

• Tier III – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify causal variable. (What is the causal variable?)

Grade Level Team Meeting• Is there a classwide problem?

• Who needs Tier 2?

• Did we miss anyone?

• What should we do for Tier 2?

• Should we go to Tier 3?

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

PLC Meetings: Agenda   

PLC: 1st weekly meeting of the month (Content Focus)

Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate

School-site established PLC focus on various topics (e.g., math, STEM, behavior, environment, or other school topical initiatives)

PLC: 2nd weekly meeting of the month MTSS (Core Instruction Literacy Focus)

Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate

Examine various formal and informal data to drive core instruction

Agenda will include embedded professional development on topics that address opportunities and challenges for core instruction

PLC: 3rd weekly meeting of the month (Content Focus)

Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate

School-site established PLC focus with schools studying varied topics

PLC: 4th weekly meeting of the month MTSS (Data Analysis)

Grade level teams and coaches with additional personnel as appropriate (data management team)

Analyze screening/benchmark data Analyze progress monitoring data Discuss, monitor and adjust tiered interventions.

Secondary• HS = Departmental teams

• MS = House teams, department teams, grade teams

WRCStudent 1 48Student 2 122Student 3 126Student 4 82Student 5 102Student 6 77Student 7 51Student 8 84Student 9 80Student 10 102Student 11 83Student 12 38Student 13 104Student 14 152Student 15 143Student 16 115Student 17 142Student 18 114Student 19 13Student 20 75Student 21 141Student 22 87Student 23 49

Median 87

Fall 70

Winter 91

Spring 109

Procedure

Partner Reading Paragraph Shrinking

1. Stronger reader reads aloud for 5 minutes

2. The weaker reader reads aloud the SAME text for 5 minutes

3. Weaker readers sequence the major events of what has been read for 1 minute

1. For 5 minutes the stronger read continues reading new text in the story, stopping after each paragraph to summarize

2. For 5 minutes the weaker reader continues with the new text, stopping after each paragraph to summarize

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Partner ReadingPartnerships

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Timeline

Collect Data: Pre-test (fluency and comprehension)

•Day 1: Train Students on Set Up Procedures and Partner Reading, Practice Reading for 10 minutes, Error Correction•Day 2: Train Students on Paragraph Shrinking, Practice Reading for 10 minutes•Day 3-10: Partner Reading, Paragraph Shrinking 15 minutes every day

Collect Data: Post-test (fluency and comprehension)

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Partner Reading Partner Reading

Talk only to your partner and only talk about Partner Reading

Keep your voice low Help your partner

Try your best!

RULESRULES

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Correction Procedures

STOP. That word is______________

What word?______________________

Good Job!

Go back and read that line again.

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Secondary

Grade Levels

2

2

4

6

22

31

51

67

77

81

71

73

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Grade 12

Grade 10

Grade 8

Grade 6

Grade 4

Grade 2

Kindergarten

Number of Empirical Journal Articles Including Grade Level in Their Sample

Fluency (actually rate)Descriptive Data and Correlations between R-CBM and Accountability Test Scores

R-CBM Maze State Test

Grade N Mean SD N Mean SD Mean SD rcbm rmaze

3rd 3165 114.5 42.8 1462.7 192.5 .71* na

5th 3283 142.8 44.3 1506.9 211.7 .65* na

7th 528 165.7 41.2 282 15.6 3.0 1456.7 104.8 .60* .54*

8th 843 168.6 39.0 1028 18.9 4.6 641.5 51.9 .51* .49*

* p < .001Note: MCA test was used for third, fifth, and seventh grade and BST was used for eighth grade, correlations are corrected for range restriction

Silberglitt, B., Burns, M. K., Madyun, N. H., & Lail, K. E. (2005). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Manuscript accepted pending revisions. Psychology in the Schools.

Student Gender Maze 11 Male 92 Male 53 Female 84 Female 85 Female 56 Male 137 Male 78 Female 189 Female 10

10 Male 511 Male 012 Male 1113 Female 514 Female 515 Male 1116 Female 717 Male 918 Female 1319 Male 920 Female 821 Male 1122 Female 523 Female 524 Female 1725 Male 1226 Male 1827 Female 528 Male 12

Median 8

http://www.fcrr.org/assessmentMiddleHighSchool.htm

Student Gender Maze 11 Male 92 Male 53 Female 84 Female 85 Female 56 Male 137 Male 78 Female 189 Female 10

10 Male 511 Male 012 Male 1113 Female 514 Female 515 Male 1116 Female 717 Male 918 Female 1319 Male 920 Female 821 Male 1122 Female 523 Female 524 Female 1725 Male 1226 Male 1827 Female 528 Male 12

Median 8

Literacy in MS/HS

http://www.fcrr.org/Interventions/pdf/Principals%20Guide-Secondary.pdf

Classwide Intervention

http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/

Individual Screening without a Test• Middle School

– More than 20% absent– Poor behavior/conduct grade– Failing math– Failing English (Balfanz & Herzog, 2006).

• High School– More than 20% absent– Course failures– Credits earned– Grade point average (Allensworth, 2005).

Tier 2 – What Should we Do?

Leveled Literacy Intervention• Effect Sizes

• Kindergarten = .26

• First Grade = .36

• Second Grade = -.09Ransford-Kaldon, C. R., Flynt, E. S., Ross, C. L., Franceschini, L. A., Zoblotsky, T. A., Huang, Y., & Gallagher, B. (2010). Implementation of effective intervention: An empirical study to evaluate the efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention Program (LLI) for 2009-2010.  Memphis, TN:  The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Comprehensive Interventions

• Lexia Reading .05

• READ 180 .13

• Read Naturally .15

Assess 4 NRP Areas

• Phonemic Awareness– Phoneme segmentation fluency

• Phonics– Nonsense word fluency (WJ Pseudoword)

• Fluency– Oral reading fluency (TOSCRF)

• Vocabulary/Comprehension

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Assess 4 NRP Areas

• Phonemic Awareness– Phoneme segmentation fluency

• Phonics– Nonsense word fluency (WJ Pseudoword)

• Fluency– Oral reading fluency (TOSCRF)

• Vocabulary/Comprehension

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

Category of Problem MN HS• 9-12 with approximately 1600 students

• 69.2% pass reading

• 9th-10th grade

• 28% low on MAP (~225)

• 45% Low on TOSCRF (~100)– 64% low on phonics (~65)– 36% acceptable phonics (~36)

Targeted Interventions Control Waitlist Control

Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Fluency Pretest 90.17 7.65 89.88 9.73 na na

Fluency Posttest 98.33 7.27 94.32 8.77 na Na

MAP Fall 206.00 9.25 211.00 10.11 210.37 6.56

Map Winter 217.21 7.56 212.40 8.06 212.78 6.04

ANCOVA for fluency F (1, 42) = 4.98, p < .05, d = .50ANCOVA for MAP F (2, 74) = 5.84, p < .05, partial eta squared = .14.

Comprehension is affected by1 & 2) Background knowledge and

vocabulary

3) Correct inferences about reading

4) Word reading skill

5) Strategy use

(Cromley & Azevedo, 2007)

Student MAP RIT RIT %ile ORF Accuracy2 144 1 2 20%

36 146 1 7 41%33 148 1 11 52%34 160 6 22 82%10 158 3 23 77%27 158 3 27 87%

7 154 1 30 77%11 160 6 31 82%

6 160 6 36 86%5 152 1 38 91%4 169 24 42 91%

32 166 17 44 90%37 161 8 50 96%17 174 37 54 95%

9 162 9 57 88%30 155 1 57 93%26 166 17 58 92%

3 177 45 68 96%19 180 53 68 94%22 190 78 72 99%13 172 32 74 96%

1 175 39 75 95%8 187 71 76 96%

14 182 58 78 99%31 172 32 81 96%25 176 42 86 99%38 184 64 97 97%28 193 84 100 99%23 191 80 105 98%18 188 73 110 99%21 178 47 110 99%16 186 69 116 99%35 181 56 140 100%

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

ACCURACY > 93%

Fluency intervention

Minnesota Center for Reading Research

ACCURACY > 93%

Fluency intervention

`Grade Phonemic

Awareness

Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension

Kindergarte

n

EIR – K EIR – K NA Text Talk NA

First Grade Road to the

Code

Road to the

Code

NA Text Talk NA

Second

Grade

Fast Forward

Language

Corrective

Reading

Six Minute

Solution

Building Vocabulary

Skills

Comprehension

Plus

Third Grade Fast Forward

Language

Corrective

Reading

Six Minute

Solution

Building Vocabulary

Skills

Comprehension

Plus

Fourth

Grade

NA REWARDS Six Minute

Solution

Building Vocabulary

Skills

Comprehension

Plus

Fifth Grade NA REWARDS Six Minute

Solution

Building Vocabulary

Skills

Comprehension

Plus

Credit Recovery or Skill Building

• MS = skill building

• 9th & 10th – Focus on skill building

• 11th & 12th – Focus on credit recovery

• Have both in both

http://www.rti4success.org/instructionTools

Buy In

Turning Around Low Performing Schools

• IES Practice Guide• Signal the need for change• Maintain a consistent focus on instruction• Make visible improvements early• Build a committed staff

– “may require changes in staff, such as releasing, replacing, or redeploying staff who are not fully committed to turning around student performance” (they seriously said this).

Leadership• Establish a leadership team (ILT)

– Watch out for one person (refocus)– Lead teacher, but NOT instructional leader– Develop leadership skills and expertise– Put the loudest complainer on the team

• Open communication with staff and parents– Instructional support activities– Community coffees– Letters to parents– Parents are your allies

Maintain a Consistent Focus on Instruction

• Set goals with data– Outcome and climate– School, classroom, and student levels– Realistic, but high

• Provide collaborative time for planning!

• Support data consumption

Quick Wins

• Celebrate at every meeting

• Changes in schedules– Common teaching– Common prep– Common intervention

• Classwide needs

• Tier 2 growth

Build a Committed Staff• Don’t fire them

• Talk about the vision of the school/plan– How does each teacher fit

• Talk about reasons why students do not succeed.

• Carefully examine ALL support personnel (are they contributing?)

burns258@umn.edu