Teacher Education Division Conference
Charlotte, NC
George M. Batsche
Professor and Co-Director
Institute for School Reform
Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/RtI Project
University of South Florida
www.floridarti.usf.edu
• www.floridarti.usf.edu
– /tools/assessments
• www.florida-rti.org
– Introductory Course
• www.rtinetwork.org
– Get Started
• www.fcrr.org
• www.justreadflorida.org
• www.rti4success.org
• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality
instruction/intervention matched to student
needs and (2) using learning rate over time
and level of performance to (3) make
important educational decisions.
(Batsche, et al., 2005)
• Problem-solving is the process that is used to
develop effective instruction/interventions.
Define the Problem
Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior
Problem Analysis
Validating Problem
Ident Variables that
Contribute to Problem
Develop Plan
Evaluate
Response to
Intervention (RtI)
Implement Plan
Implement As Intended
Progress Monitor
Modify as Necessary
ACADEMIC SYSTEMS
BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS
Tier 3: Comprehensive &
Intensive Students who need
individualized interventions.
Tier 3: Intensive
Interventions Students who
need individualized
intervention.
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.
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.
ACADEMIC SYSTEMS
BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS
Tier 3: Comprehensive &
Intensive Students who need
individualized interventions.
Tier 3: Intensive
Interventions Students who
need individualized
intervention.
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.
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.
• Academic Engaged Time (AET) is the best predictor of
student achievement
–
–
–
–
330 minutes in a day, 1650 in a week and 56,700 in a year
This is the “currency” of instruction/intervention
Its what we have to spend on students
How we use it determines student outcomes.
• MOST students who are behind will respond positively
to additional CORE instruction.
– Schools have more staff qualified to deliver core
instruction than specialized instruction.
– Issue is how to schedule in such a way as to provide more
exposure to core.
• Managing the GAP between student current level
of performance and expectation (benchmark,
standards, goal) is what RtI is all about.
• The two critical pieces of information we need
about students are:
– How BIG is the GAP?
• AND
– How much time do we have to close it?
• The answers to these 2 questions defines our
instructional mission.
• Rate is growth per week (month) necessary to
close the GAP
• Rate becomes the statistic we need to define
evidence-based intervention (EBI)
• EBI is any intervention that results in the
desired RATE
1. Accelerating students at or above proficiency
– Gifted Education
– Establishing benchmarks
2. Prevention: Identify students at-risk for
literacy failure BEFORE they actually fail.
– Kindergarten screening, intervention and progress
monitoring is key.
– No excuse for not identifying ALL at-risk students
by November of the kindergarten year.
– This strategy prevents the GAP.
– Managing GAPs is more expensive and less likely
to be successful.
3. Early Intervention
– Purpose here is the manage the GAP.
– Students who are more that 2 years behind have a
10% chance, or less, or catching up.
– Benchmark, progress monitoring data, district-wide
assessments are used to identify students that have
a gap of 2 years or less.
– Students bumping up against the 2 year level receive
the most intensive services.
– This more costly and requires more specialized
instruction/personnel
4. Intensive Intervention
– Reserved for those students who have a GAP of more
than 2 years and the rate of growth to close the GAP
is unrealistic. Too much growth—too little time
remaining.
– Problem-solving is used to develop instructional
priorities.
– This is truly a case of “you cannot do something
different the same way.”
– This is the most costly, staff intensive and least likely
to result in goal attainment
Step 2
Step 1
All Students at
a grade level
Intensive
Supplemental
Behavior
Academics
ODRs
Monthly
Bx
Screening
BenchMark
Assessment
Step 3
Addl.
Diagnostic
Assessment
Instruction
Individual
Diagnostic
Individualized
Intensive
Results
Monitoring
1-5%
5-10%
Standard
Protocol
Small
Group
Differentiated
By Skill
weekly
2 times/month
Core
Annual
Testing
Step 4
80-90%
None
Continue
With
Core
Instruction
Grades
Classroom
Assessments
Yearly Assessments
• 71% of districts are in some stage of implementing RTI – up
from 60% in 2008 and 44% in 2007
• RTI is being increasingly implemented across all grade levels
with a significant increase in high school implementation
compared to 2008
• Of districts with enough data, 83% indicated RTI has reduced
the number of referrals to special education
• Districts reported the three primary obstacles to
implementing RTI as: Insufficient teacher training Lack of
intervention resources Lack of data, knowledge, skills for
tracking/charting
• www.spectrumk12.com
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
State Management Group
State Transformation Team
Regional RtI Coordinators
DA Regional RtI Specialists
District Based Leadership Teams
School Based Leadership Teams
School-Based Coaches
Advisory Committee
Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction
Office of Early Learning
Bureau of Educator Recruitment, Development and Retention
Just Read, Florida!
Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services
Accountability Research and Measurement
Office of Communications and Public Affairs
Educator Quality
Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Services, Office of the
Chancellor
• Student Achievement, Office of the Chancellor
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall Goal of the
State Transformation Team
• Scale up quickly with fidelity
per the comprehensive plan
with considerations to
leadership, resources, funding,
etc., as related to
Differentiated Accountability
Plan, school change and
current educational context
and fiscal realities in Florida.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Office of Achievement Language Acquisition
Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Project
Office of Early Learning
Florida Center for Interactive Media
Florida Center for Reading Research
Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services
Bureau of School Improvement
Florida Center for Research-Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project
Bureau of Family and Community Outreach
RtI Teaching Learning Connections
Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction
Just Read, Florida!
Florida Problem Solving/
Response to Intervention Project
PS/RtI North Region
PS/RtI Regional Coordinator
2 DA RtI Specialists
PS/RtI Central Region
n
n
n
n
n
n
DA Region 1
PS/RtI Regional Coordinator
2 DA RtI Specialists
DA Region 2
DA Region 3
DA Region 4
DA Region 5
PS/RtI Pilot Districts
PS/RtI South Region
PS/RtI Regional Coordinator
2 DA RtI Specialists
•
•
•
•
•
•
Added 5 RtI Specialists to DA Regional Teams
Completed Years 1 and 2 of Statewide Training
Completed Years 1 and 2 of Pilot School Training
6337 Individuals Enrolled in the On-Line RtI Introductory Course
2831 Individuals Completed the On-Line RtI Introductory Course
24 Regional Meetings to Support District RtI Plan Development
– 66 of 67 Districts Attended
– 31 Districts Submitted Plans for Voluntary Review in June
– Visit www.floridarti.usf.edu (District Plan Examples)
• 5, 3-Day Regional Training of Trainers Meetings
– 61 Districts Sent Teams to be Trained
• 3 Regional Meetings for Principal Leadership Training on RtI
• Direct Technical Assistance to Districts
• State Infrastructure and Plan
• District Infrastructure and Plan
– www.nasdse.org for plan
• Building Infrastructure and Plan
– www.nasdse.org for plan
•
•
•
•
Professional Development
Technical Assistance
Implementation Monitoring and Integrity
Program Evaluation
Consensus
Infrastructure
Implementation
Constituent Items
11b. Students receiving SPED services are capable of
achieving math benchmarks
11a. Students receiving SPED services are capable of
achieving reading benchmarks
10b. Most EBD students achieve math benchmarks
10a. Most EBD students achieve reading benchmarks
9b. Most LD students achieve math benchmarks
9a. Most LD students achieve reading benchmarks
Percentage of Total Responses
All Project Beliefs Survey Item Response Data
Factor One (Student Academic Ability)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Strongly Agree
0
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
PS/RtI Project Pilot Schools SBLT
Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementation (SAPSI)
Consensus
Note: No data for Bear Creek,
Woodlawn, or New Heights for
Spr 09
3
Goal 4 Indicator
Fall 07
Spr 08
Status
2
Win 09
Spr 09
1
3= Maintaining
2= Achieved
1= In Progress
0= Not Started
0
District Commitment
1
SBLT support
2
Faculty involvement
3
Item
SBLT present
4
Data to assess commitment
5
Spr 08
Win 09
Spr 09
Data used to evaluate core
beh programs
10
Data used to evaluate core
acad programs
9
Data presented to staff
8
Data used to make decisions
7
Data is collected
6
Item
Data used to determine Tier 3
RtI
14
Data used to evaluate Tier 2
interventions
13
ODR data used to ID students
needing beh interventions
12
CBM data used to ID students
needing interventions
11
Status
PS/RtI Project Pilot Schools SBLT
Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementation (SAPSI)
Infrastructure Development- Data Collection
Note: No data for Bear Creek,
Woodlawn, or New Heights for
Spr 09
3
2
3= Maintaining
2= Achieved
1= In Progress
0= Not Started
1
Fall 07
0
•
•
Component
1 = Present 2 = Partially Present 3 = Absent
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Problem Identification
One ore more replacement behaviors were identified
1
2
3
Data describing current and expected levels of performance collected
1
2
3
A gap analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate tier of intervention
1
2
3
Problem Analysis
Hypotheses were developed across multiple domains
1
2
3
Hypotheses were developed to determine if the student was not performing the replacement behavior because of
a performance and/or skill deficit
1
2
3
Data were used to determine viable or active hypotheses for why the replacement behavior was not occurring
1
2
3
•
•
•
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Decisions made to
modify core or
Universal screening
or other data used
Team hypotheses to
identify reasons for
Data used to
determine
Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Criteria for positive
RtI were defined
Progress monitoring
data
Decision regarding
student RtI was
Plan for contin,
modifying, or
0.00
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Score
2.00
1.00
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8
9
10
11
Item
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Decisions made to
modify core or
Universal screening
or other data used
Team hypotheses to
identify reasons for
Data used to
determine
Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Criteria for positive
RtI were defined
Progress monitoring
data
Decision regarding
student RtI was
Plan for contin,
modifying, or
0.00
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Score
2.00
1.00
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8
9
10
11
Item
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Decisions made to
modify core or
Universal screening
or other data used
Team hypotheses to
identify reasons for
Data used to
determine
Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Criteria for positive
RtI were defined
Progress monitoring
data
Decision regarding
student RtI was
Plan for contin,
modifying, or
0.00
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Score
2.00
1.00
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8
9
10
11
Item
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Decisions made to
modify core or
Universal screening
or other data used
Team hypotheses to
identify reasons for
Data used to
determine
Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Modifications made
to core instruction Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Supp. instruction
developed or
Criteria for positive
RtI were defined
Progress monitoring
data
Decision regarding
student RtI was
Plan for contin,
modifying, or
0.00
Data to determine
effectiveness of
Score
2.00
1.00
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8
9
10
11
Item
Pilot
Schools (%)
Comparison
Schools (%)
Improved
65%
48%
Declined
22%
41%
No Change
13%
11%