Including Students with Disabilities in a Culturally Responsive Multi-Level System of Support
description
Transcript of Including Students with Disabilities in a Culturally Responsive Multi-Level System of Support
Marlene Gross-Ackeret, WI RtI Center/PBIS Network
Dana McConnell, WI RtI Center/PBIS Network
Tiffany Helmke and Amy Tranel, Dodgeville Elementary School
Linda Zeman, Chetek-Weyerhauser School District
Including Students with Disabilities in a Culturally Responsive Multi-Level System of Support
Agenda
IntroductionsOutcomes for the daySystems view
For ALL
Belief System/Culture District level support
structuresData
How are you collecting data?
Looking at data? Using Data? What are you missing? Data walk-through
School Examples Dodgeville Elementary Chetek-Weyerhauser
Questions…
Outcomes for the Session
Research and rationaleUnderstanding of benefits for ALL
students and staffData walk-through and its usesSchool Examples of what this looks
like
We Know…….
To improve the academic success of our children, we must also improve their social success.
Academic and social failures are reciprocally and inextricably related.
Educational Outcomes for Students w/Disabilities
Students w/disabilities are almost 2X as likely to be suspended from school as nondisabled students, with the highest rates among black children with disabilities.
13% of students w/ disabilities in kindergarten through 12th grade were suspended during the 2009-10 school year, compared to 7% of students without disabilities.
Among black children with disabilities, the rate was much higher: one out of four were suspended at least once that school year.
Department of Ed.; The New York Times, August 7, 2012
Educational Outcomes for Students with EBD
40-60% drop out of high school (Wagner, 1991, 1996; Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein, 2005)
Experience poorer academic performance than Students with SLD (Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006)
10-25% enroll in post-secondary education (compared to 53% of typical population) (Bullis & Cheney, 1999)
High rated if unemployment/underemployment post-school (Bullis & Cheney, 1999; Kortering, Hess & Braziel, 1996, Wagner 1991; Wehman, 1996)
High rates of MH challenges, poverty, incarceration (Alexander, et al., 1997; Kortering, et al., Lee and Burkham, 1992, Wagner 1992)
Youth with EBD . . .
Disengaged from school/family/communityMost likely disability group to be educated in
a segregated settingHighest rates of disciplinary infractionsPerceived by teachers as having significantly
lower levels of social competence and school adjustment (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006)
Bridging the Gap
General + Intensive Resources
General Resources
Intensity of Problem
Am
ount
of
Res
ourc
es N
eede
d to
Sol
ve P
robl
em
General + Supplemental Resources
Systems View
What is the culture of your building? Is there a belief that SwD should be included in our
schoolwide system/data? Do we have high expectations for ALL? Academics
AND Behavior?
Are we ALL working towards the same vision and mission?
What are our non-negotiables in order to achieve that vision and mission?
Healthy School Culture
“Educators have an unwavering belief in the ability of all of their students to achieve
success, and they pass that belief on to others in overt and covert ways. Educators create
policies and procedures and adopt practices that support their belief in the ability of every
student.”
- Kent D. Peterson in Cromwell, 2002.
Cultural Change
“Structural change that is not supported by cultural change will eventually be
overwhelmed by the culture, for it is in the culture that any organization finds meaning
and stability.”
Schlechty, Shaking Up the Schoolhouse:How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation (2001), p. 52
District Level Support Structures Needed for Sustainability…
District structures must be in place in order to support and
sustain systems change efforts!
Data Audit
*Behavior Data*ODRs per day per mo.
*By behavior
*By time of day
*By location
*By infraction
*Other including M/m
*Group, etc.
*Attendance
*EE or LRE
*Detentions
*Suspensions I/O
*Expulsions
*Academic data per group/individual
*Etc.
Activity: Think – Pair- ShareReflect on Current Practices
What are your current practices for teaching behavioral expectations? What about for SwD’s?
Are SwD’s included in your school-wide discipline data? How are you using this data?
Do you capture data differently for SwD’s? Separate system or extension of school-wide system?
Do you have the same behavioral expectations for your SwD’s? Are they linked back to the school-wide expectations?
Think about this……..
Academics: CCSS, CCEE = Smarter Balanced
Behavior: Behavior Matrix = ODR’s
WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?
HOW ARE WE USING THE DATA TO MAKE DECISIONS?
How do you disaggregate your data?
Main Ideas
•Build “decision systems” not “data systems”•Use data in “decision layers”
–Is there a problem? (overall rate of ODR)–Localize the problem
–(location, problem behavior, students, time of day)
–Get specific. Do not speak in code.
•Do not drown in the data•It’s “OK” to be doing well•Be efficient•What do you do for students without IEP’s that display similar behaviors (e.g. homework completion)?
Main Ideas cont’d
• Do we have a problem?• Refine the description of the problem?
• What behavior, Who, Where, When, Why
• Test hypotheses• “I think the problem on the playground is due
to Eric”• “ We think the lunch period is too long”• “We believe the end of ‘block schedule” is used poorly”
• Define how to monitor if solution is effective
We can’t include SWD in our data!
SWD will skew our dataWe have this one kid who . . . We will look bad when we present data to the
School BoardIf we keep track of every thing he/she does,
that’s all we would have time to doOthers?
Here is how you can………
Set Your Preferences to Require IEP Identification
Drilling Down the Data
Monitor Progress of Interventions/Programs/Supports
Year End Report: IEP Summary
ALL Students
“Equality means we don’t find a place for her; we make this the place for her.” (Rob Horner, 2013)
The single largest reason: students are moved social behavior teachers leave social behavior
Key Concept
Putting outcomes forstudents with IEP’sinto the context of
schools as systems toeducate and support
ALL students.
SCHOOL EXAMPLES: Outline of Focus
Historical view in implementing PBIS and RtI (CR-MLSS)
What is the culture of your building? Is there a belief that SwD should be included in our schoolwide
system/data? Do we have high expectations for ALL? How do you show this? How do you know you have a positive school culture? Are you
measuring this?Have you included SwD in your data from the
beginning? What does this look like in your school? What obstacles/challenges did you encounter? How did you overcome them?
Outline cont’d
How are you using your systems data to support your SwD? What benefits/efficiencies have you identified by doing this? Are there
things that you have been able to eliminate or ‘take off people’s plates’? How else are you using this data for SwD?
What does disaggragating data look like in your school?Have you had any “Ah-ha’s or Uh-ohs”?What other supports/structures do you have in place to close
achievement gaps for SwD’s in your school?What does the role of your special educators look like within
your school system? How has the role of special educators evolved? Or, hasn’t it? How are they involved in collaboration time?
What has the impact of your efforts been?
Dodgeville Elementary
Mtss for
Swds at
Des:An alphabet soup story of our FYIs, OMGs, BTWs for including SwDs in
MTSS.
Once upon
a time
…
Here’s a story, of a
lovely school district:1288 students
2 elementary schools598 students
1 middle school294 students
1 high school396 students
Race/EthnicityAsian-1.4%; Black- 2.2%; Hispanic- 2.6%; White- 92.7%
Economically Disadvantaged32.2%
Mobility RatioRatio of non-Full Academic Year (FAY) students: FAY students-0%
Disability Status11.9% SwDs
Our Beg:
RtI Implementation:
9 yearsREACh grantReading
PBIS Implementation:
Tier 1: 5 yearsTier 2: 2 years
Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here. Type your text here.
A Fyi: Our Mtss framewo
rk
Marriage of RtI and PBIS
Co-teaching to support IEPs wherever possible to support academic and behavior needs
Academics- Benchmarking, progress monitoring, gap closure, growth
Behavior- SWIS (behavior and attendance) and life skill data
Btw, we believe that:
The MTSS framework is for ALL students-
including those with disabilities.
School Report Card data- SwDs needed to be an area of focus
Track progress co-teaching model
Racial diversity is limited, therefore SwDs are followed as a sub-group due to risk ratios
SwDs have always accessed core. Recently began participating in Tier 2 with general education students (previously provided through special education services)
Omg. We have high
expectations.
But we like it.
District goal: Close gap of each SwD by 1/3 each year
Focus on not only students who are struggling but those accelerating
Ensure all students are accessing core and interventions
Co-teachers
Share knowledge of accommodations and interventions
Provide interventions
Support others in progress monitoring
Team approach for all- administrators, counselors, Encore staff
Special Educati
on Teacher
sAKA
Masters of playing multiple roles in our
story!
MTSS meetings
PST meetings
Grade level meetings
Professional Development
Educator Effectiveness Pilot
Bffs talk!
Special Education Teachers collaborate
frequently.
It’s a necessity.
Student progress- Are students making progress? Maintaining? Or regressing?
Many questions such as:“Why change what we are doing? By including them in general education programming, does this lose focus of an individualized education plan?”
Including Swds? It was Ez!
JK.
We had challenges along the way.
Initiated courageous conversations about programming and performance of students
Implementation of the problem solving process- not separate from the IEP team, but offered frequent support through collaboration on meeting student needs
System of support in responding to all needs- System of breaks, behavior responses, providing interventions
What’s Gr8 about
including Swds?
A systematic, team response so that ALL are meeting student needs- ‘All our students, all the time’ philosophy
Support system for staff and students
CST- including individuals from all areas to support students
Is the culture in our
fairytale
positive?
You bet. It’s what we do. It’s our philosophy. We are a PLC. We
even LOL together.
Student surveys
Parent surveySubstitute survey
Strong acknowledgement system for staff and students
Number of students qualifying for special education services has decreased. We support them through MTSS. Influencing more focus on early intervention.
Many SwDs are on track or have closed the gap. Positive progress for those in co-taught classrooms as well.
Positive percentages for students meeting growth goals.
Positive feedback from students and parents regarding co-teaching, particularly for SwDs.
Significant decrease in suspensions this year.
There will be more!- We haven’t finalized our fairytale ending yet because we are continuing to refine our system.
What can we Celebr8
?
There’s always room for celebration.
Hopefully this isn’t TMI?The End!
Chetek-Weyerhauser
Chetek-Weyerhaeuser Area School District
About the District
• Just over 1000 students PK-12• High poverty rate• Declining enrollment• In the RtI journey for over 11 years
– We started with a focus on reading and behavior– Math and language arts was added later
• More than 99% of our SWD are fully included in core curriculum and general classes– SWD have been included in in data sets from
beginning– Our buildings use resources differently
What We Know
Structure change alone will not improve a school.
Educators must create a new culture with new assumptions, beliefs, expectations, values & habits that constitute the norm for that school.
A Necessity
• We had difficult conversations–Grading–Formative vs. summative
assessments–Accommodations vs. modifications
Critical Philosophies
• All students fit into the multi-tiered system– We do not have adequate staff to create two
separate systems.
• Challenge expectations for SWD– All but 4 students expected to meet all academic
expectations• Academic expectations can be modified
– All but 6 students expected to meet all behavioral expectations• For each student we are accommodating for their
disabilities but have not needed to modify expectations.
Critical Philosophies• Continual use of data and all students
count• Look at the whole child
– Academic screeners– Behavior screeners
More About Data
• Systematic process to examine data sets
• Discussion protocols to keep the team directed
• As interventionists-special education teachers are part of the problem solving team
Obstacles
• IEP process is not responsive enough to fit with the RtI system– Any student needing an intervention gets an
interventions – it is not an IEP issue
• If time and intensity are constants, learning is the variable.
• When you have limited resources if one teacher has an intervention with 3-7 students, the other class sizes will increase.
Obstacles
• Pyramid of interventions need to address both skill deficits and motivation issues – “can’t do” vs. “won’t do”– Adequate data sets?
• Example:• What we know about our failing high school
students– Low academic skills does not consistently predict
failure– Multiple missing assignments– Often have poor attendance
Mindset Intervention
2 X a week for 30 minutes• Entrance criteria
– Failed one or more classes in the previous trimester
• Exit criteria– Passing all classes at end of the trimester– Will remain for entire trimester
Intensive - 5 X week for 60 minutes• Entrance criteria
– In mindset previous trimester and still failed one or more classes
• Exit criteria– Passing all classes at end of trimester
Special Education Teachers
Roles they play• Interventionists
– Academic– Mindset– Academic resource
• Co-teachers• Case Managers
Roles they don’t play• Teach slower and louder
Our Impact
Impact
Then Now
Our SWD were more likely to be incarcerated than to be employed after graduation.
Our SWD are more likely to go into post secondary education than to be employed after graduation.• 40% plan to attend 4 year colleges• In the 2013-14 school year we
completed more assessments for ACT accommodations than in the past 25 years combined.
Academic growth of SWD was significantly slower than their non-handicapped counterparts despite special services.
SWD meet exit criteria for interventions at an impressive rate.
Thank you!
QUESTIONS?COMMENTS?