Foundations for A Problem Solving, School-Wide Model Rhode Island Technical Assistance Project...
-
Upload
kyle-daniels -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of Foundations for A Problem Solving, School-Wide Model Rhode Island Technical Assistance Project...
Foundations for A Problem Solving, School-Wide Model
Rhode Island Technical Assistance ProjectSummer 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 [email protected], (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 What it is not
Represents a way of:Using data to examine the system in relation to most important results.
A panacea
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
Level IVIEP
Consideration
• ImplementPlan
• Evaluate
• Define the Problem
• Develop a Plan
Am
ou
nt
of
Reso
urc
es
Need
ed t
o S
olv
e P
rob
lem
The Problem Solving Approach
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem
Solving Team
ConsultationLevel I
BetweenTeachers-Parents
Level IIConsultation withOther Resources
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
• Implement Plan (Treatment Integrity)
Carry out the intervention
• Evaluate(Progress Monitoring Assessment)
Did our plan work?
• Define the Problem(Screening and Diagnostic Assessments)
What is the problem and why is it happening?
• Develop a Plan(Goal Setting and Planning)
What are we going to do?
Level IVIEP
Consideration
Am
ou
nt
of
Reso
urc
es
Need
ed t
o S
olv
e P
rob
lem
The Problem Solving Approach
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem
Solving Team
ConsultationLevel I
BetweenTeachers-Parents
Level IIConsultation withOther Resources
Initial Instruction
Level One
• Develop a Plan
Anecdotal documentation
• EvaluateParent and teacher determine effectiveness and need for additional resources
• Define the ProblemInformal discussion focusing on behaviors of concern
• Implement PlanParent and teacher gather information and monitor
Parent
Teacher
Consultation Between Teacher and Parent
Level IVIEP
Consideration
Am
ou
nt
of
Reso
urc
es
Need
ed t
o S
olv
e P
rob
lem
The Problem Solving Approach
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem
Solving Team
ConsultationLevel I
BetweenTeachers-Parents
Level IIConsultation withOther Resources
Strategic Instruction/Intervention
Level Two
• Develop a Plan--Team offers strategies
-Solutions generated -Plan written
• Evaluate
• Implement Plan
• Define the Problem-Available Screenings
-Further definition of the problem
- Team assists with implementation- Data collected from naturally occurring sources if possible
-Data used to evaluate progress-Success determined
Parent
Teacher
BAT
BuildingAssistance
Team
Strategic Instruction:Consultation with Other Resources
Level Three
-Implement according to written plan-Ongoing systematic data collection-Follow-up as needed
• Evaluate • Develop a Plan-Generate possible solutions-Evaluate solutions-Select a solution-Collect baseline data-Set a goal-Write action plan-Select measurement strategy -Develop plan to evaluate effectiveness• Implement Plan
Strategic Instruction: Consultation with Extended Problem Solving Team
• Define the Problem-Identify concern
-Define behavior of concern-Problem validation
-Data analyzed to determine effectiveness-Success determined by rate of progress & size of discrepancy-Recycle or determine need to consider entitlement for special education
-Problem analysis-Functional assessment -Write problem statement
Parent
Teacher
BAT AEA
Level IVIEP
Consideration
Am
ou
nt
of
Reso
urc
es
Need
ed t
o S
olv
e P
rob
lem
The Problem Solving Approach
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem
Solving Team
ConsultationLevel I
BetweenTeachers-Parents
Level IIConsultation withOther Resources
Intensive Instruction
Level Four
• Develop a Plan
• Define the Problem
• Implement 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
Intensive Instruction: Intervention and Entitlement Consideration
(Due Process)
• Evaluate
-Identify additional areas of concern-Develop assessment questions
-Implement according to IEP-Ongoing systematic data collection-Instructional changes made as needed
-Collect additional data necessary forentitlement decision
Parent
Teacher
BAT AEA-Success determined by rate of progress and size of discrepancy-Plan rewritten once per year or as often as data indicates the need
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
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
1-5% 1-5%
5-10% 5-10%
80-90% 80-90%
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive
Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
School-Wide Systems for Student Success
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.
“Helping Children Read ...Helping Teachers Teach”Heartland Early Literacy Project
Problem Solving and the School-Wide Model in Practice
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, BeginningReading Institute
We’re aiming to help children establish trajectories toward success
P K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 +
Low
HighTrajectory- “the path a projectile makes under the action of given forces such as thrust, wind and gravity.” --Encarta World English Dictionary
Established - Benchmark
Emerging - Strategic
Deficit - Intensive
Assessment and Instructional Grouping
Score
Time
Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 Benchmark 3
Established - Benchmark
Assessment and Instructional Grouping
Score
Time
Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 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 ImprovementAssess Needs
Planning
Implementation and Monitoring
Evaluation
Five Stages to Implementation
Stage One Conduct School Audit Assess Student Performance
Assess Needs
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons
Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective School-
Wide Reading Programs
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
Conduct a School Audit
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 Benchmark Intervention Strategic Intervention Intensive Intervention
Assess Needs
Planning
Implementation
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
Evaluation
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
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction toAchieve Instructional Priorities
Ed Kameenui and Deb Simmons
Curriculum Maps: Mapping Instruction toAchieve 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
Implementation
Evaluation
Ed Kame’enui and Deb Simmons
First Grade Benchmark Goals
(Working Backwards)
Established Reader by Spring of First Gradeif 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 Gradeif 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
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
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
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 phonological awareness KindergartenHeartland Students
:
Cross-year box plots oral reading fluency First GradeHeartland Students
Legend
2001=2002 Beginning: Middle: 4427 End: 4412 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4036 End: 4151 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1595 End: 1879
Insert K Placement Data
Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Kindergarten Across 36
School Buildings
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.
School Year
Nu
mb
er o
f N
ew S
PE
D P
lace
men
ts
Prior to HELPMeanHELP Implementation
Mean55% Reduction in Kindergarten New SPED
Placements
Insert 1 Placement Data
Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placments: First Grade Across 36
Schools
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.
School Year
Nu
mb
er o
f N
ew S
pec
ial E
du
cati
on
Pla
cem
ents
Prior to HELPMeanHELP ImplementationMean
27% Reduction in First-Grade New Special Education
Placements
Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Second Grade for 36
Schools
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.
School Year
Nu
mb
er o
f N
ew S
pec
ial E
du
cati
on
Pla
cem
ents
Prior to HELPMeanHELP ImplementationMean
24% Reduction in Second-Grade SPED Placements
Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Third-Grade for 36 Schools
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02.
School Year
Nu
mb
er o
f N
ew S
pec
ial E
du
cati
on
Pla
cem
ents
Prior to HELPMeanHELP ImplementationMean
8% Reduction in Third-Grade New SPED Placements
Punch Line
Table 1. Z-Score Growth For Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, Heartland Early Literacy Program 1999-2002.
Yr1-Yr2 Z Score
Yr 1- Yr 3 Z Scores
Mean Z Score 0.71 1.08
Median Z Score 0.70 1.25
Number of Scores 85 36
Low Z Score -3.76 -0.77
High Z Score 3.93 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
Number of Scores 86 32
Low Z Score -2.15 -0.68
High Z Score 2.49 2.47
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?