RtI Initiative at Ingham ISD
MASP Annual ConferenceOctober 17, 2011
Emily Sportsman, PhD RtI Implementation Consultant
Jeanne Tomlinson, MA RtI Supervisor
Background:Ingham ISD RtI Initiative
A new approach was needed; we were spending a lot and it wasn’t working.
25+ years of special education legislation and funding Resulted in poor student outcomes Failed to demonstrate cost effectiveness Failed to validate aligning instruction to SE diagnostic
classification
In August 2009, ALL districts in our service area decided to pool
their stimulus funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to implement RtI.
12 local districts 4 rural, 2 urban, 6 suburban, +1 public school academy
ARRA OPPORTUNITY Collective agreement Consolidation of funds Consolidation of effort Standardized the
practice Customized the
implementation
Intense and focused trainings across all districts
Created common goals
Narrowed our focus Increase our intensity Districts purchased RTI
coaches ISD trained coaches
Three-Tiered Model of School Supports & the Problem-solving Process
ACADEMIC SYSTEMS
Tier 3: Comprehensive & Intensive Students who need individualized interventions.
Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Students who need more support in addition to the core curriculum.
Tier 1: Core Curriculum All students, including students who require curricular enhancements for acceleration.
BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS
Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Students who need individualized intervention.
Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Students who need more support in addition to school-wide positive behavior program.
Tier 1: Universal Interventions All students in all settings.
IISD-wide RtI Initiative: Long Term Goals
Create and support district-level and building-based practices that improve outcomes for all students
and
Reduce the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their general education peers.
Key Resources in establishing our approach to RtI:
Florida model for RtI implementation The National Association of State Directors of Special
Education (NASDSE) Response to Intervention Blueprints for Implementation
…from these resources we developed an Action Plan with 52 indicators to track progress in these areas:
Consensus Infrastructure Implementation
It’s hard to improve something if you’re not measuring it
Indicators and Evidence
Indicators and Evidence
Indicators and Evidence
Measuring Progress Toward an RtI Model
Consensus Infrastructure
Implementation
Consensus Infrastructure Implementation
SMART Goal
SMART Goal
SMART Goal
8
RtI Framework:Eight essential components
Universal screening Progress Monitoring Data-based decision making Shared Leadership Research-based Instruction and Interventions Problem Solving Tiered Systems Family and Student Involvement
Infrastructure Development:Structures and Processes to Support RtI
Shared Leadership Ingham ISD Leadership Team (aka RtI
Implementation Team) Local District Leadership Teams (DLT) School-Based Leadership Teams (SBLT) Grade-level teams
RtI Coaches Selected by districts to support each building Meet monthly at ISD, embedded in SBLTs
Students
Building Staff
Building Staff
BuildingLeadership
Team
Coaches
Local DistrictLeadership
Team
Ingham ISD
Improved student outcomes
Provides effective practices to support students
Provides guidance and manages implementation
Provides guidance and support to Building Leadership Teams and principals
Provides visibility, training and technical support for coaches and BLTs
Cascading Structures of Support
Provides guidance, visibility, and political support
Coaches, District Teams, and Building Teams
Multiple schools w/in local district and coaches
Building Leadership Teams and Principals
All staff
All students
Two reconfigured units
Because RtI profoundly impacts our operational supports and instructional programs/services, our ISD restructured:
Student Instructional Services Implementation of core curriculum, assessment and
instruction Roberta Perconti, Director
Student Support Services Support to the core curriculum, assessment and
instruction, including special education programs and services Andrew Rable, Director
Professional Development 2010-2011
LiteracyApproximately 5000 staff trained
Positive Behavior Intervention SupportApproximately 1000 staff trained
LeadershipApproximately 500 staff trained in RtI/MiBLSi
Thanks to the Michigan Behavior Learnng Support Initiative (MiBLSi), Anita Archer, George Batsche, and Kevin Feldman
RtI Accomplishments in 2010-11 Expanded Literacy Focus and Began Focus on Math
Trained MS and HS teams on vocabulary and student engagement ( Dr. Kevin Feldman)
George Batsche, training for leadership teams and special education Anita Archer, 4 days of literacy trainings Math RtI Training
Introduced Early Warning Systems Betterghighschools.org
Targeted Positive Behavior Intervention Supports 60 building teams completed PBIS training (3 days) in 2010-11
and will collect student behavior data in 2011-12. Developed capacity to implement SWIS throughout the county
RtI Accomplishments in 2010-11 Engaged in continued RtI/MiBLSi training (7 days of training)
Cohort 5 – 2 buildings Cohort 6 – 10 buildings Cohort 7 – 59 buildings
Trained staff and implemented revised Learning Disability eligibility guidelines
Supported Adoption of Core Reading Program
Trained and Supported RtI Coaches with monthly training and collaboration
Supported Universal Screening Systems county-wide
Program Evaluation Data Sources Process Data: Consensus, Infrastructure and Implementation of
RtI Building Self-Assessment (SAPSI from Florida MTSS) Belief Survey (Florida MTSS) Perceptions of Skills and Practices (Florida MTSS) Planning and Evaluation Tool for Reading (MiBLSi) PD Attendance Coach Logs District Scorecard PBIS Surveys (MiBLSi)
Self Assessment Survey Team Implementation Checklist Benchmarks of Quality
Student Outcome Data AIMSweb, DIBELS 6th ed., DIBELS Next School-wide Information System (SWIS) MEAP and MME Graduation and Drop-out Rates Early Warning Signs (betterhighschools.org)
Attendance Credits Earned Course Failures
Focus on Literacy
Research-Based Core Reading Program
2009-2010 Research Based Core Reading Program Review
IISD negotiated consortium pricing for Reading Street 67% of local districts adopted a research based core
reading program 2009-2010 - 4 LEAs purchased Reading Street 2010-2011 - 3 LEAs purchased Reading Street
Oral Reading Fluency Grade 1
Reading Street Non Core0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
63%59%
72%
52%
74%
51% January 2010January 2011May 2011
Perc
en
tage o
f Stu
den
ts a
t B
ench
mark
Impact of Core Reading Program
January 2010
January 2011
May 20110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
63%
72% 74%
59%52% 51% Reading Street
Non Core
Perc
en
tag
e o
f S
tud
en
ts a
t B
en
chm
ark
2011-12 PDSustaining and Deeping Our WorkContinued Focus Leadership:
Principal’s Academy Literacy
Anita Archer Kevin Feldman Core Reading
Positive Behavior George Sugai
Intervention Support Literacy
RtI/MiBLSi trainings
Emerging Areas Math
Data Collection, instruction and intervention
Early Warning Signs (EWS)
-Continuing work with High Schools
-Adding Middle Schools
Family/Community Involvement
Fidelity
Tier 2 and Tier 3
Sustainability Reconceptualizing RtI coach role as skill-set to support
and lead RtI implementation Identified in every district
District Leadership Team will continue to support the RtI initiative. Implementation Science Liaison Structure
School Based Leadership Teams will continue to deepen and sustain RtI implementation
Deep Drivers
RtI Coach Skill Set Data based decision making using problem
solving framework Use of research based instruction, intervention
and assessment Family/community involvement Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring Focus on Early Warning Signs Leadership, Leadership, Leadership!!!!