An Overview of Effective Behavior and Instructional Support Systems for MiBLSi

State Conference, 4/22/2008

Carol Sadler, Ph.D.casadler@verizon.net

PBS, EIS, PLC, MTI, RTI….

Oh My!

CSadler 2

PBS and RTI use MTI and PLCs to accomplish EIS!

What do PBS and RTI (for…) have in common?• District and school-wide Systems• Research-based• DATA focused• Processes NOT programs • For ALL students K-12• 3-5 year commitment to implement• Clear goals, common vision and expectations• Leadership and teacher collaboration, the Heart

CSadler 3

NCLBIDEA

RTI

LDED

EIS

PBSPBISEBS

EBISs

AYP

ESEA

OSAT/OAKS

TESAFBA-BIP

DIBELSCB

M

Teacher

TheAcronym SCREAM!

Carol Sadler, Ph.D., Educational Systems Consultant

PLC

ORFTLC

CSadler 4

“the vision of schools as a community of leaders is not a fantasy.

…shared leadership expands the possibilities for school improvement, increases commitment, complicates

decision-making, and makes for more effective education of children”

(Barth, 1990)

CSadler 55

Session Overview

Introductions Response to Instruction/Intervention

What, Where, Why, and How Relationship to Positive Behavior Support

Effective Behavior & Instructional Support (EBIS) Outcomes (from the 6 year demonstration in Tigard-Tualatin) How the EBIS Process Works

Example Protocols Forms Team Process SPED Referral and Identification Fidelity Monitoring

Summary & Conclusions

CSadler 6casadler@verizon.net 6

CSadler 7

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RTI)

What, Where, Why, and How

CSadler 8

What is RTI? (Mellard & Johnson, 2008)

Process of instruction, assessment and intervention that allows schools to identify struggling students early, provide appropriate instructional interventions, and increase the likelihood that all students will be successful.

CSadler 9

Where does RTI apply? (Is it just about Sped?)

Screening and Prevention Identifies students at risk and provides early

intervention Early Intervention

Enhances the general curriculum for all students and provides intervention and remediation

Disability DeterminationDetermines a student’s response to instruction

and intervention as one part of special education evaluation and identification

CSadler 10

RTI is not intended to replace comprehensive

evaluation “…it is meant to intervene in a research-based and hopefully effective way to address difficulties students are having, either academically or behaviorally. It rests on the possibility that prior instruction, not disability, might be at the root of the problem. It is meant for all students, even as it may also be used as part of making determinations of LD.”

(Guidance from U.S. Dept. of Ed., OSEP, Regional Regulations Implementation Meetings, Feb. 2007)

CSadler 11

Why Implement a RTI Approach?

General School ImprovementPromising approach to providing

appropriate learning experiences for all students

Usefulness for early identification, intervention, and reduction of risk

Compatibility with other school-wide models and systems for school improvement, such as PBS

CSadler 12

Why Implement a RTI Approach?

Alternative to Traditional ReferralTwo parallel systems: general and

special educationProblems in general referral and

evaluation in specialIdentification, when it occurred,

typically Learning Disabilities (LD)

Process Wait to FailWait to Fail

CSadler 13

“When we know better, we do better.”

Maya Angelou

CSadler 14

How? Multi-Tiered Instruction/EIS/Prevention Model

Public Health & Disease Prevention (Larson, 1994)

Tertiary (FEW)Tertiary (FEW) Reduce complications,

intensity, severity of current cases

Secondary Secondary (SOME)(SOME) Reduce current cases

of problem behavior

Primary (Primary (ALLALL)) Reduce new cases of

problem behavior

CSadler 15

RTI - Multi-Tiered Instruction

Tier 1 All Students: Primary Core, Screening, and Differentiated Instruction

Tier 2 Some Students:

Targeted Interventions

Tier 3 Few Students:

Intensive Interventions

Some refer to special education as a Tier 4 – still others, as Tier 3

CSadler 16

Why Implement an integrated behavior and academic approach?

Social behavior deficit model• Social skills problems lead to

academic problems (Dishion, French & Patterson, 1995, Reid & Patterson, 1991, Wehby, Lane & Falk, 2003)

Academic skill deficit model Academic problems lead to social

problems (Lee, Sugai & Horner, 1999, Roberts et al 2001)

Pathways to Problems in School

CSadler 17

Reading and Behavior Connections (McIntosh & Sadler, in process)

Predictors of 2 or more Office Discipline Referrals in 5th grade: LNF and PSF

below benchmark at end of Kindergarten (p <.01)

Predictor of meeting/exceeding OSA Reading/Literature in 5th grade: NWF above

benchmark at end of Kindergarten (p <.01)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Mean

ODRs

Per Y

ear

Established

Emerging

Deficit

N=426 students with scores K-5; binary logistic regression analyses

CSadler 1818

Reading and Behavior Connections Oregon State Reading x Office Referrals

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

Gr 3 Gr 5 Gr 8 Gr 10

Sc

ale

d S

co

re

Passing

0-1

2-5

6+

(Sadler & Sugai, 2008)

CSadler 19

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

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

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

CSadler 20

Good Teaching Behavior Management

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity

Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems

Effective Behavior & Instructional Support Systems

Adapted

CSadler 21

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingDecisionMaking

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Effective Support Systems

“Investments”

Adapted

CSadler 22

EBIS Model (Tigard-Tualatin School District)

CSadler 23casadler@verizon.net 23

T-TSD Demographics (2007-08)

17 Schools, 13,000 students10 elementary, 1 charter, 3 middle, 2 high, 1 alt

Special Programs participation1,200 Special Education (10%)1,800 English Language Learners (15%)1,500 Talented and Gifted (12%)

Socio-economic statusTitle 1 in 6 elementary schools

Free/Reduced ranges from 7% to 58%

24casadler@verizon.net 24

T-TSD Significant Events

ODE Technical Assistance on ED evaluation (1988) Curriculum Based Measurement System (CBM) and

Problem-Solving Model (1989) Early Literacy (C & I) Specialists (1998) Effective Behavior Support (1996) First Step to Success (1999) Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (1999) Effective Behavior & Instructional Support – EBIS/RTI

Project (federal grant-elementary schools) (2001) Project CIRCUITS (2002) Tualatin ES-National Model Site-National Center for

Research on Learning Disabilities (2004) Oregon RTI Training Initiative-ODE (2005) Middle and high school—Literacy Initiative (2005) Carol retired (2006)

CSadler 25

CSadler 26

“Sustainability does not simply mean whether something will last. It

addresses how particular initiatives can be developed without

compromising the development of others in the surrounding

environment now and in the future.” (Fullan, 2005)

CSadler 27

T-TSD EBIS Project (2001-2006)

OUTCOMES

1. Sustain existing model of Effective Behavior Support in elementary schools

2. Implement a comparable, multi-tiered model of support to improve K-3 reading outcomes

3. Demonstrate use of RTI for Special Education evaluation and identification

CSadler 28

Sustaining EBS: How did we do?

Critical Features SW PBS: Rules CLEARLY DEFINED Rules are CONSISTENTLY TAUGHT Rules are POSITIVELY REINFORCED Systems are in place for CORRECTING PROBLEM

BEHAVIORS DATA are used for DECISION-MAKING A team holds REGULAR MEETINGS, and team

LEADERSHIP is clear There is a high level of SCHOOL and DISTRICT-LEVEL

SUPPORT

CSadler 29

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ES 1 ES 2 ES 3 ES 4 ES 5 ES 6 ES 7 ES 8 ES 9

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

School Wide Evaluation Tool (SET) 5-Year Trends

80% Criteria

CSadler 30

Office Referrals per 100 Students Per Day T-TSD Elementary Schools

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05

Elementary Schools

Ref

erra

ls

U of O SWIS Avg 04-05: .39 per 100 student/per day

This worked out to a difference of about 2 ½

months of additional teaching/learning time in

T-TSD compared to national sample

CSadler 31

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

(Walker, et al. 1996)

T-TSD Office Discipline Referral

Distribution All Students

2004-05

80% received NO referrals;

90% received 0-1 referrals

8% received 2-5 referrals

1% received 6 or more referrals

CSadler 32casadler@verizon.net 32

Improving K-3 Reading Outcomes: How did we do? T-TSD DIBELS PSF 1999-00 through 2005-06

CSadler 33

(Sadler & Sugai, 2008)

Figure 2. Percent of kindergarten students in established range on DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency pre- and post-implementation (2000-01 through 2005-06) of the Early Reading Intervention curriculum in 6 Title 1 elementary schools.

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg.EachYr.

Elementary Schools

2000-01

2003-04

2005-06

CSadler 34

2005-06 DIBELS

Established/Low Risk

Emerging/Some Risk

Deficit/At Risk

K-PSF 88% 9% 3%

1st-ORF 71% 19% 10%

2nd-ORF 66% 15% 20%

3rd-ORF 58% 27% 14%

CSadler 35

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

Read3

Read5

Math3

Math5

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

Oregon State Reading and Math Assessments

Board Goal =>

CSadler 36

Early Intervening: How did we do? %(#) Students in DEFICIT range

2000-01 2005-06

ISF Beginning K 18% (142 students) 21% (184 students)

PSF End K 8% (59 students) 3% (25 students)

LNF Beginning 1st 28% (215 students) 22% (197 students)

ORF End 1st 21% (149 students) 10% (80 students)

Early Identification Using RTI Alternative

Overall #s K-12 SLD = 2001: 507; 2005: 530; 2006: 513

Grade 1: 2004 = 8; 2006 = 12 Grade 2: 2004 = 19; 2006 = 49

CSadler 37

How the EBIS Team Process WorksEBIS Team Process Works

EBIS is a structured, systematic process thatfeatures:

Team Membership and Responsibilities Decision Rules Data for Multiple Purposes Universal Screening: Core Evaluation and

Planning, Identifying At Risk Students Phases 1- 2: 1st and 2nd Interventions Phase 3: Individualizing Phase 4: Referring for Continuation of SPED Evaluation Fidelity Monitoring (Interventions, Processes)

CSadler 38

Key Component: Evidenced-based Curriculum and Instruction

New reading adoption this year: Macmillan/ McGraw-Hill Treasures-Fast Track Phonics-K 90 minutes per day (60 in K) Fidelity checks by principal Initial training for new teachers or teachers new to a grade

level Train-the-Trainers model for ongoing support during the year

Differentiated Instruction within the Core Skill grouping options

45 min. whole group plus 45 min. skill grouping (Approaching-On-Beyond)

90 min. skill grouping

Literacy Specialists work with A Teachers TAG Specialists work with B Teachers Master Teachers (Train the Trainers) work with all levels

CSadler 39

Macmillan Components

Main SelectionVocabulary, Comprehension Skills and

Comprehension Strategies Leveled Readers

Reinforce skills taught in main selection and add connected text reading at skill level

Grammar and SpellingCan be included in 90 min. or outside of

90 min. with district Writing program (Lucy Culkins)

CSadler 40

T-T Tier II: Core Plus Strategic Intervention

Additional, research-based instruction in area of need Usually 30 minutes per day Small group (3-7) Interventionist trained in program:

May be classroom teacher, Title I, or Instructional Assistant Ex. 2007-08: Pam provided up to a day of training for each

program…on-going refresher training by Lit. Spec. based on fidelity information

Example: Combined Phonics for Reading/Read Naturally 30-45 minutes daily Small group of 5 students Taught by an Instructional Assistant in the Reading Lab

CSadler 41

T-T Tier III: Core Plus Intensive Intervention

Goal for Tier III students is to be in Core instruction the whole time plus additional intervention

However, occasionally students will be in Core for 30 min. to receive main selection and vocabulary, then 60-90 min. of Reading Mastery

Example: Combined Reading Mastery and Read Naturally Group of 3 30-45 minutes twice per day Most experienced Instructional Assistant or Certified Teacher

How intensive might differ from strategic? More time Smaller group Different program Most skilled interventionist

CSadler 42

T-TSD Standard Protocols

History ES:Reading and Behavior in place for yearsReading interventions closer to 30 than 45

min.Math started this yearWritten Language starting next year

MS-HS: Scale up began in 2006

Review protocols (10 min.)

CSadler 43

EBIS Team Structure

EBIS Leadership Team

SW EBS Team

Individual Student Support Teams

On-Going Assessment of Students’ Academic & Social-Behavioral Skills

Grade LevelTeacher Teams

CSadler 44

EBIS Leadership Team (EBIS-T)Meets 3 Times/Yr. (Screening) and then

Monthly (Progress Monitoring) Includes principal, counselor, literacy

specialist, special education, ELL specialistsLeads screening, ongoing evaluation of coreMonitors students in small group and

individual interventionsOversees RTI fidelity and makes referrals to

special education

EBIS Team Membership and Responsibilities

CSadler 45

Grade Level Teacher Teams (GLT-T) (EBIS collaboration)Meet monthly with EBIS Leadership TeamCollaborate with EBIS-T to plan, implement

and monitor supplemental group/individual interventions (Tier 2)

EBS Team (EBS-T) Includes principal and representative

certified and classified staffMeets Monthly-Quarterly Focuses on implementation and fidelity of

SW prevention program

EBIS Team Membership and Responsibilities

CSadler 46

EBIS Team Membership and Responsibilities

EBIS Individual Student Support Team (ISS-T)Membership varies: classroom teacher,

school experts/specialists, ELL, parent, etc.Psychologist important here

Implements individualized interventions, monitors student progress

Reports to EBIS Leadership TeamMay recommend referral for Special

Education evaluation

CSadler 47

Conduct UNIVERSAL SCREENING (DIBELS, OSA Scores, Attendance, Office Referrals, etc. - Three Times/Year - Fall,

Winter & Spring)

Fall: REVIEW UNIVERSAL SCREENING DATA (EBIS Leadership & Grade Level

Teacher Teams)

IDENTIFY STUDENTS needing Supplemental Instruction/

Intervention (General Decision Rule: Lowest 20%) Complete EBIS Interventions & Planning

Form

IMPLEMENT INTERVENTION #1 (Small Group Intervention, Begin

Student Intervention Profile)

Monitor Progress Weekly

(4-8 Weeks)

- Progress

+ Progress

1Winter/Spring: Begin REVIEW of SCREENING

DATA to Evaluate Effectiveness of Core

Curriculum and Instruction Program (General Decision

Rule: =>80% on Track)

See Benchmark (Tier 1)

Instruction Options and

Program Evaluation Tools

See Intervention Decision Rules and

Progress Monitoring Guidelines

Continue Intervention #1

IMPLEMENT INTERVENTION #2 (Adjust Small Group, Continue Student Intervention Profile)

Use Options for Changing Interventions

EBIS TEAM PROCESS

2

CSadler 48

Core Evaluation and Planning If the 80% Criterion is not being met…

Literacy: 90 minutes of reading daily? Protected allocated reading

time each day? Skill grouping by class or

grade (“customized” instruction)?

Core and supplemental programs implemented with fidelity?

More professional development needed?

Math: Skill grouping by class or

grade? Identifying and emphasizing

specific strands?

Adequate allocated time for instruction each day? Guided practice?

Fluency issues, e.g., facts?

Behavior: Is the school-wide

program fully implemented?

Identifying and teaching to a small, clear set of rules?

Reinforcement systems in place?

Data being used for program/activities planning?

Systems for correction in place

CSadler 49

Monitor Progress Weekly

(4-8 Weeks)

- Progress

+ Progress

IMPLEMENT INDIVIDUALIZED INTERVENTION

Use “Formal” Problem Solving (IPS Worksheet,

Development History, Functional Behavior

Assessment)

Monitor Progress Weekly

(4-8 Weeks)

- Progress

+ Progress

Improvement Appears

Related to Other Factors

—Identify Resources to

Continue Needed Support

REFER FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION EVALUATION Intervention is so intense LD

is suspected

4

3

Resume General Program

EBIS TEAM PROCESS, continued

CSadler 50

Problem Solving

Process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and

evaluate intervention plans that significantly improve the school

performance of students

CSadler 51

Problem Solving Process

EvaluateDid the Plan Work?

EvaluateDid the Plan Work?

Analyze/Define Problem

Why is it happening?What is Contributing to it?

Develop Plan

Analyze/Define Problem

Why is it happening?What is Contributing to it?

Develop Plan

Identify Problem (need for support) Using screening data

Identify Problem (need for support) Using screening data

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

CSadler 52

EBIS Forms Review

Group Interventions & Planning FormDecision RulesStudent Intervention ProfileOptions for Changes in Interventions

Individual Problem Solving Worksheet & Action Plan (not in handouts)

CSadler 53

casadler@verizon.net

CSadler 54

Intervention: How Much is Enough? (Burns, Hall-Lande, et. al, 2006)

Nationally, most Tier 2-3 implementations

are at least 30 minutes3 to 5 times/week

T-TSD NEVER less than 5 for 8-16 weeks

8 pts. to calculate trend. “Reliable progress evaluation typically requires 16 data points”

CSadler 55

Determining Response to Intervention

Student Progress is weighed against Intervention Intensity

Student Progress has 22 components (This

evaluation concept is described as “Dual Discrepancy” by Fuchs & Fuchs,1998)

Under similar instructional context,student being evaluated has Low Skills (compared to Typical Growth) Slow Progress (compared to Cohort Progress)

CSadler 56

Referring for Special Education Evaluation

If a well-implemented individualized intervention is not successful, a special education referral is made

The referral form is accompanied by the Student Intervention Profile, Developmental History, Individual Problem Solving Worksheet and evidence of progress monitoring (e.g., DIBELS or other CBM graphs)

CSadler 57

Questions for Completing LD

Evaluation and Determining Eligibility

1. Is our information complete? (File review, Observation, Additional Assessments-other concerns, impact of disability, medical information)

2. Does the student have very low skills? (Consider multiple sources, CBM, DIBELS, State Assessments, published tests, work samples, grades, etc.)

3. Does the student fail to learn at a sufficient rate in response to intensive, research-based instruction? (RTI history, intervention intensity, progress data, peer comparisons)

Adapted from OrRTI Technical Assistance Guidelines, Dec. 2007

CSadler 58

Questions for Completing LD Evaluation and Determining Eligibility

3. Do we have conflicting data and, if so, how do we make sense of it? (Case by case, professional judgment)

4. Are there other explanations for the student’s low skills and lack of progress?

(Lack of appropriate instruction or the “exclusionary” criteria)

5. Do we believe the student has a LD?

Adapted from OrRTI Technical Assistance Guidelines, Dec. 2007

CSadler 59

A child with LD does not achieve adequately inone or more of the following areas, when provided with appropriate learning experiences and instruction (comparisons to age or state-approved grade standards)

(i) Oral expression(ii) Listening comprehension(iii) Written expression(iv) Basic reading skills(v) Reading fluency skills(vi) Reading comprehension(vii) Mathematics calculation(viii) Mathematics problem solving

CSadler 60

And, the child’s difficulties are NOT primarily due to

(i) A visual, hearing, or motor disability(ii) Mental retardation(iii) Emotional disturbance(iv) Cultural factors(v) Environmental or economic

disadvantage(vi) Limited English proficiency

CSadler 61

A child may not be determined eligible as LD

In reading, if there has been a lack of instruction in:

Phonemic awarenessPhonicsVocabularyReading fluencyComprehension strategies

Or lack of instruction in mathOr limited English proficiency

CSadler 62

A Student with LD

Has not been able to learn at a reasonable rate

Requires continued specialized instruction, and closer monitoring of progress with accountability for results Instruction/intervention may be similar to that

provided prior to eligibility depending on intensity and effectiveness for that student

How does RTI work for behavior, i.e., ED/EBD?

CSadler 63

EBIS ExamplesMonitoring Processes & Intervention Fidelity

Team Implementation Checklists Assessing and Planning EBIS (Instructional Focus) Assessing and Planning EBS Gauging EBIS Implementation EBS School Wide Evaluation Tool (SET) Planning & Evaluation Tool for Reading (PET-R) DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness

The Role of the Learning Specialist Fidelity Information (observations, program checklists)

– See websites in References Outcomes/Summative data analyses

CSadler 64

Implementing a EBIS (RTI) Approach

CSadler 65

7 Core Principles of EBIS (PBS & RTI) Implementation - District Level

Research-based and standards-driven instruction in general education for ALL students

Staff and funds for systematic data collection (for screening and progress monitoring) using direct measures of achievement and behavior

Staff and funds for developing and maintaining research-based, programs for targeted groups and individual student intervention

Development of policies and procedures for RTI implementation On-going professional development and support to ensure

fidelity of instruction/interventions and RTI decision-making processes at the schools

Schools to engage in collaborative, problem solving teamwork for student level decision-making (on a monthly basis)

Schools to engage in collaborative, problem solving teamwork for systems’ level decision-making (on at least a semi-annual basis)

CSadler 66

7 Core Principles of EBIS (PBS & RTI) Implementation School Level

(adapted from NASDSE, 2005, U of O Center for Teaching & Learning, 2008)

Clear GOALS are set and agreed upon by all Strong school-wide commitment to using a RTI framework and meeting academic

and behavior goals School personnel believe that ALL students are part of ONE proactive

educational system Believe all children can learn Use ALL available resources to teach ALL students All teachers are responsible for all students System includes behavior as well as academics

Instruction/Intervention are scientific and research-based Preventive, multi-tiered Instructional model Differentiated instruction Combined approaches, standard protocol and problem-solving

Collaborative teamwork is the norm Instructionally relevant assessments are used

Reliable and valid Multiple purposes (screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, outcome/program

evaluation) Data guides instructional decisions On-going professional development, follow-up modeling, and coaching are

provided Leadership is vital and transparent

CSadler 67

Summary and Conclusions