1

Fulfilling the Bellingham Promise

with Response to Intervention (RtI)

Recommendation of the Bellingham

RtI Advisory Group Submitted Spring 2015

Co-Leaders: Dawn Christiana, Mike Haberman, Stephanie Korn

Steering Committee: Trina Hall, Pam Pottle, Nicole Talley

Fulfilling the Bellingham Promise with

Response to Intervention (RtI)

2

Recommendation of the Bellingham RtI Advisory Group

Submitted Spring 2015

Table of Contents

Background

Acknowledgement

Rationale:

Recommendation

Overview

o Common Language: Defining and Describing RtI

o Website and Visual and Tool for RtI Procedures

o RtI Menu of Interventions

o Expansion of Student Growth Collaboration

o Small group advisories

Assessment

RtI

o People and job descriptions

o Professional Development

Calendar of Implementation

A School Model Fulfilling the Promise through RtI

Proposed 3-5 Year Financial Allocation to Implement RtI

Additional Considerations

Culture and Equity

RtI Beyond P-5 Literacy

RtI Link with the Bellingham Promise

3

Background: Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the RtI Advisory Committee for their

commitment, dedication, and passion for improving student learning in a systematic way. We

truly appreciate the time, hard work, deep thought, and critical examination of our current

practices and processes to support the range of learners in the Bellingham School District.

Steering Committee: Dawn Christiana, Teacher on Special Assignment

Michael Haberman, Director of Teaching and Learning Special Education

Trina Hall, Sunnyland Elementary Principal

Stephanie Korn, Director of Teaching and Learning Title I

Pam Pottle, Teacher on Special Assignment

Nicole Talley, Silver Beach Elementary Principal

Additional Focus Groups: -Literacy Intervention Teachers -Elementary Principals -Dyslexia Book Study Group -Elementary Teachers -Instructional Assistants

4

Rationale:

Implementation of a common literacy resource and strengthening core instruction

has been a focus, but students are still not demonstrating growth in ways that are

closing our achievement gap.

These slides represent the data compiled from the state Achievement Index with a

scale of ten (10.0=Highest level of growth and 1.0=lowest). Shaded in red shows

Title school growth and the right slide shows all elementary plotted by growth and

achievement.

5

As a system we continue to hover in the 70-80% passing rate in reading. Without

a systematic approach to providing students with support, this trend will continue.

In support of equity and struggling

readers at Non-Title Schools we

added .4 LAP FTE to each

elementary school during the 2013-

2014 school year, however without

a systematic approach, the impact is

limited. During the 2013-2014

school year 70.4% of students

receiving intervention support

demonstrated a year or less than a

year’s growth even with the added

intervention support. 29.6% of

students receiving intervention

demonstrated the expected

accelerated growth.

6

Overview of the Recommendation from the RtI Advisory Committee:

We collectively recommend that the Bellingham Public Schools implement a

district-wide RtI process focused on P-5 Literacy and expanding to 6-12 literacy,

K-12 behavior, K-12 math. The elements we recommend include:

Common Language: Adopt specific definitions and descriptions of the tiers

of support aligning Response to Intervention vocabulary supporting common

understandings.

Website, Visual and Tools: Create and launch a website for teacher teams

and families to understand the district RtI process and how their child is

supported and/or enriched. Include a “diamond” visual of the RtI

philosophy for Bellingham School District and link specific tools.

RtI Menu of Interventions: Continue strengthening core instruction in all

classrooms K-5. Identify specific intervention approaches for classroom

teachers (Tier II) and interventionists (Tier II and Tier III) and include in a

“menu” for teachers to select from.

Expansion of Student Growth Collaboration: Increase the

implementation of Student Growth Collaboration to include all elementary

schools and support facilitation by the intervention team and principal.

Small group advisories: Continue developing the RtI model with two small

groups meeting throughout the 2015-2016 school year: Assessment

Advisory and an on-going RtI Advisory.

People and job descriptions: Increase Library Media Specialist time by .2

for specific instruction in assistive technology. Director dedicated to RtI

alignment across programs.

Professional Development: Implement professional development in

understanding diverse learners (Students with dyslexia, Highly Capable

learners, English Language Learners and other identified areas)

7

Common Language Defining and Describing RtI Following a review of many different resources, collaboration and revisions, the following definitions and key components

are recommended as the common language to develop common understandings of RtI in the Bellingham School District.

Scientific/Evidence Based: Definition: Strategies, processes, curricula that are based on research that supports improved student learning.

Tier I: Core Instruction

Tier II: Strategic Intervention *Concerned needs added support

Tier III: Intensive Intervention *Highest level of concern

Definition: Tier I provides research

based instruction aligned to the

instructional framework of teaching

and learning for all students. This high

quality core instruction includes

differentiated student support driven

by ongoing evaluated assessment

results.

Definition: Tier II is supplemental

small group instruction aligned to core

and targeted to a specific need for

students who have not responded with

adequate growth in Tier I instruction.

Definition: Tier III provides rigorous

individualized intervention for students who

have not responded with adequate growth

in Tier I and Tier II interventions. Tier III

provides students with the greatest levels of

intervention frequency, intensity and

duration in order for them to access the core

curriculum.

Key Components: Group Size: ALL (Whole class, small

group,1:1)

Frequency: Daily and regularly for small

group and 1:1 as determined by assessment.

Duration: 3-6 week focused units of study,

flexible small group and 1:1, consistently

throughout the year

Instruction delivered by: Certificated teacher

Parent Communication: Formal and informal

(Parent Communication Menu-to be

developed)

Key Components: Group Size: 3-5 students

Frequency: 10-30 minutes 2-5x per week

Duration: 3-6 week minimum to test

effectiveness of intervention

Instruction delivered by: classroom teacher

or other teacher or specialist

Parent Communication:

Conversations with the teacher

Letter to describe intervention, decision

process, etc.

Key Components: Group Size: 1-3 students

Frequency: 30+ minutes up to 5x per week

Duration: 6-8 week minimum to test effectiveness

of intervention

Instruction delivered by: Specialists or designed

and monitored by specialists

Parent Communication:

Progress, intervention and home support is

communicated by specialist and/or classroom

teacher.

8

Systematic Assessment Definition (What): Systematic assessment begins with the use of a universal screener administered during specific scheduled intervals and/or

point of entry which leads to more comprehensive, diagnostic assessment for students not making adequate progress. The data collected is used

to determine next steps.

Key Components:

Universal Screen Diagnostic Progress Monitoring

Definition Assessment used to

identify the

students who are at

risk for learning

difficulties.

Assessment designed to

identify the causes of

specific student areas of

growth, with intent to guide

or modify instruction or to

design differentiated

instruction or supplemental

interventions.

Using intentionally selected tools at regular intervals to determine

how well a student is responding to instruction

Group Size All students Fall

1:1 Often 1:1 (tool dependent)

Frequency Fall, winter, spring As needed Tier I: Regular and on-going formative assessment/classroom

progress monitoring is a key component of differentiated core

instruction. Universal screen is a component of the progress

monitoring in Tier I.

Tier II: Primary reading level=every 3 weeks, Intermediate reading

level=every 6 weeks

Tier III: Determined based on student needs and area of focus

Duration Annually Specified by the tool Student is monitored until team determines student is proficient and

able to fully access core instruction without added Tier II, Tier III

Delivered by Classroom teacher

and/or support

Certificated teachers Teacher teaching the student monitors their progress

Communication

with Parents

Universal RtI communications with all families prior to Fall screening.

Data in Skyward and accessible K-12

Individualized RtI Entry/Exit, progress monitoring or Tier changes (celebrations and/or concerns)

Instructional plans and goals

9

Website and Visual and Tool for RtI Procedures

10

Response to Intervention: High Expectations for All

Advanced and HCP Learners Above Expectations:

Confirm participation in differentiated core instruction and:

Determine best Tier II approach and/or resource.

Below Expectations Confirm participation in differentiated core instruction and:

Diagnose reading difficulty

Determine best Tier II approach and/or resource.

Tier I: Differentiated Core Instruction and Universal Screen 85-90% of students

Universal Screening Assessment Fall and upon entry

At or Above Expectations: Continue w/differentiated core instruction.

Parent communication Select appropriate intervention from “menu” of recommended Tier II approaches/resources.

Parent communication Select appropriate intervention from “menu” of recommended Tier II approaches/ resources.

See Tier II: Strategic Intervention 5-15% of students

All students monitored Winter and Spring K=K-Screen, Phonological Awareness and BAS 1=BAS

Title I Schools Non-Title Schools

2=BAS 3=BAS Fall ALL 3-5th=SRI Fall, Winter, Spring BAS only if not at standard in Fall

2=BAS (only NYAS winter) 3-5th=BAS only if not at standard

11

Tier II: Strategic Intervention 5-15% of students

Step 2: Monitor progress toward goal regularly (based on approach or resource in use.) *Parent communication w/progress

Step 1: Implement approach in addition to core instruction.

Adequate Progress: Continue intervention until established goal is met.

Insufficient Progress:

Extending Learner= Academic rigor is not evident Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach *Adjust intervention before considering Tier III.

Struggling Learner = Achievement gap is not closing. Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach/resource. *Adjust intervention before considering Tier III.

See Tier III: Intensive Intervention 1-5% of students

12

Tier III: Intensive Intervention 1-5% of students

Step 1: Parent communication Select appropriate intervention from “menu” of recommended approaches/resources.

Step 2: Implement approach in addition to, in rare instances in place of, core instruction and Tier II intervention as deemed appropriate for the student.

Step 3: Maintain intervention for at least 6 weeks and/or until student is demonstrating sufficient skills to be successful with Tier I or both Tier I and Tier II.

*Following implementation and documentation of multiple intervention attempts (Tier II and Tier III) and on-going concerns, Special Education referral might

be a consideration.

Adequate Progress: Continue intervention until established goal is met.

Step 4: Monitor progress toward proficiency based on approach or resource in use. *Parent communication w/progress

Insufficient Progress:

Struggling Learner = Achievement gap is not closing. Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach/resource. *Adjust intervention before considering SPED Referral.

Extending Learner= Academic rigor is not evident Determine adjustment to intervention or alternative approach

13

Expansion and Refinement of Student Growth Collaboration (SGC)

Student Growth Collaboration Proposal for 2015-2016

Proposal:

Develop facilitation teams to host SGC’s at all schools. (Possibly LIT, SPED, ELL or TOSA’s)

Train teams with leadership skills, data preparation and review (Pre Session Options)

All schools host SGC’s in the same window of time aligning the progress monitoring across the

system and allowing data to be collected more systematically

Review the data from across the district for trends or patterns in student achievement and in

teacher areas of need (Data Review) (Post Session Options)

Time and Sub Release

Ideally teams would be released for a half day of preparation prior to each SGC and a half day for

review following each SGC.

Per school=Title, SPED, ELL (sub release 3x14)

TOSA’s and one school based member=(sub release 1x14)

SGC Windows:

Prep Session Options

One half day session

SGC Window *includes one early

release date and

Purple Friday

Data Review

One half day session

Purple Friday w/in Window *Included to support

administrators wanting to use

building time for this work.

October 5-7th October 8

th-16

th October 19-21

st October 9

th

November 30th-Dec. 2

nd December 3

rd-11

th December 14, 15, 16 December 11

th

February 8-10th February 11

th-19

th February 22-24

th February 12

th

April 11th-13

th April 14

th-22

nd April 25-27

th No Purple Friday in April

May 31st or June 1

st June 2

nd-10

th June 13 or 14

th June 10

th

Additional Ideas:

Three SGC’s required in all schools and five in those that opt in for the additional two

Title schools do both Math and Literacy

SGC specifically designed for principals and a team they bring to the district office for a half day

look at their whole school Fall, Winter and Spring.

SGC+ with focus on follow-up support meeting teacher’s individual or collective instructional

needs

Small group advisories: Convene RtI Representative Team

Assessment Team Purpose: To refine the PK-5 Literacy Assessments with ELL, HCP, Title/LAP- RtI in mind

Refine assessment schedule with universal screening for K-5 Fall, Winter, Spring

Review current phonological awareness screen being used in Kindergarten and other

potential options to determine critical screen.

Consider HCP testing alignment and protocols within RtI

Determine assessment tools that could refine our approach (diagnostic, progress

monitoring, etc.)

Determine specific data needs for teachers, principals, directors and necessary personnel

14

Small group advisories (continued):

RtI Advisory Group (continued and revised) Purpose: To strengthen intervention and extension approaches and resources across the district

Inventory the CST/Problem Solving processes across the elementary schools to support

the decision making model for RtI and PBIS

Research and recommend Tier II approaches and strategies for classroom teachers and

interventionists

Research and recommend Tier III approaches and strategies for interventionists

Monitor the RtI implementation across elementary schools

Develop and implement parent communication and internal data tracking system

People and job descriptions

Library Media Specialist: Increase LMS time by .2 with a specific focus on supporting students

with assistive technology and teachers with the professional development/support to use and

implement assistive technology.

Develop a .5 position dedicated to the Multi-Tiered System of Support beginning with the K-5

literacy assessment system and moving toward math and behavior. The role would include

collecting, organizing and managing progress monitoring and summative assessment data for

regular and on-going review of student growth, achievement and program effectiveness. The

role would include monitoring the data for validity, completion and distribution. Each teacher

and school would be provided data in a variety of formats for collaborative review and

thoughtful development of data literacy skills for all staff.

Additional expectations include:

- Developing a thorough understanding of current data systems capabilities and sharing that

knowledge with teachers and administrators.

- Identifying and developing methods for efficient data gathering within the system. (Refer and

consider blending with 2014-2015 Above Baseline request from Brian Rick.)

Instructional Assistant hired to support intervention across the district based on needs.

Professional Development Develop and implement a plan for supporting teachers with differentiated instruction and

the specific needs of students with Dyslexia, Highly Capable, ELL and more)

Integrate into PLC’s whenever possible developing common understandings of RtI as the

Promise and specific vocabulary, approaches and systems (Principals and Classroom

Teachers)

Combine Literacy Intervention Specialists, ELL Specialists and Special Education

teachers for collective professional development refining understandings of RtI. (District

Purple Fridays)

Develop strand options for choice professional development days with a focus on

Dyslexia, Highly Capable Learning, Differentiation in a reading and writing workshop.

Para-educator thread to support participation in understanding RtI and their role.

(Thursday early release time)

A School Model Fulfilling the Promise through RtI

15

In three to five years the implementation of RtI would likely result in schools

that fulfill the Promise for all students, staff and families. An ideal model:

Differentiated core instruction would meet the needs

of 80-85% of the students in the classroom.

Calendar of Implementation

RtI would be in place in both literacy

and math intentionally using SGC’s and

the recommended flow map, decision-

making model, menu of interventions,

professional development to meet the

diverse needs of students and strong

communication with families.

PBIS or similar school-wide

approach for behavior

expectations would be in place to

maximize learning time and a

focus on whole child instruction

matching each developmental

stage.

All classroom teachers would have regular and on-going professional support in the form of a Principal as an

instructional leader and interventionist teams (LIT, SPED, ELL, Psych) with a majority of their time allocated

to providing in-class support (team teaching, coaching, planning) and student support.

Non-Title Schools

RtI Team:

Smallest schools=1.0 “interventionist” for

ELL/Literacy and 1.0 SPED teacher.

Larger schools=

1.0 Literacy Intervention teachers w/.5 direct

student intervention and .5 in class support

1-2.0 SPED FTE based on school size

1.0 ELL FTE (based on need)

Title Schools RtI Team:

Reduce class size K-2 less than 20; 3-5 less than 25

Maintain current Literacy Intervention allocation,

shift job descriptions to .5-.75 core classroom

support and remaining time for direct student

intervention.

1-2.0 SPED FTE based on school size

1.0 ELL Specialists with focus on in-class support

Additionally:

LMS would be allocated .2 to specifically support assistive technology for all students. (Special attention to monitor students with 504/IEP’s noting accommodations)

Psychologists would support 2 schools (.5 at each) for screening, diagnostic & consultation for instruction.

The role of SLP and OT would include more time for collaboration and instruction.

Additional Instructional Assistants would be trained in Barton reading providing specialized support for students identified with Dyslexic tendencies (not assigned to a specific school)

Additional Literacy support could be itinerant based on the SGC data every 6-8 weeks.

Problem solving teams would be in place to support staff in identifying approaches to meet student learning needs across the tiers. (Not MDT)

16

Proposed 3-5 Year Financial Allocation to Implement RtI:

Year 1: 2015-2016 Years 2-3: 2016-2018 Years 4-5: 2018-2020

Website/Interactive Tool: Proposed Expense: Potentially free with time of current IT/communications department and use of current platform.

*Refinement of the tools to include behavior supports and potentially math resources. *New platform may be necessary

SGC Refinement and Expansion 2014-2015 Budget Allocation: Title II: LAP: Proposed Expense: 14 schools with teams of 3-4 teachers released for 10 half days=$42,000.00

*Add CST or problem solving teams at all schools to support RtI academics and behavior outside of MDT process. *Potentially add Math SGC? *Support process 6-12 by school

Maintain and support

SGC Implementation at the Building Level 5x per year: Model A=4 roving subs at all 14 schools=$8400 per round Total $42,000.00 per year Model B=6 roving subs at all 14 schools=$12,600 per round Total $63,000.00 per year *Ideally schools would plan a model that matches their building needs and culture

SGC Implementation at the Building Level K-8 5x per year: Elementary=maintain from 2015-2016 school year Middle Level=Teams (grade band or content) of 8 released with roving subs 4 x per year (quarterly)=$2400 per school Total $9,600.00

Maintain and support

“Ideal School Staffing” *If possible reducing class size at Title Schools. Decrease class size at Title I schools to less than 20 in K-2 and less than 25 in 3rd-5th

Add intervention support increasing non-title school to 1.0 (ELL and LAP) Title Schools and Northern Heights (based on ELL population) =1.0 FTE ELL Specialist

*Funding varied based on school projections, financials can be made available if

necessary

17

Additional Human Capital Increase LMS positions .2 ($18,800) x 14 schools= Total $263,000.00

Assessment Specialist Total $50,000.00

Instructional Assistant Support used as needs are identified across the system (i.e. Barton Reading for students identified with Dyslexic tendencies)=180 days x 2 hours per day=360 total hours at $21.32 Total $8,000.00

*May need increase in this support for math

Materials (Tier I, II, III as determined by data review and research) Review of current resources May identify necessary intervention supports

for literacy and/or math

18

Fulfilling the Promise through RtI (MTSS)

Recommendation Timeline

Date Step or Task in the Process

May 21st 2015 Elementary Principal Level Meeting input regarding

flow map, menu and SGC plan

By May 29th 2015 Submit Recommendation to Dr. Baker

June 2015 Communication: Share executive team decision with Advisory,

administrators and specific intervention teachers

Spring/

Summer 2015

Collaboratively develop structure for SGC (Student Growth Collaboration)

developing the capacity of building level teams and DT&L

Spring/

Summer 2015

Develop an assessment team structure to support immediate data collection

using BAS (Cadre to assess students)

2015-2016

Begin in the fall

Convene RtI Representative Teams: (See page 14 for more complete explanation)

Assessment Team

Purpose: To refine the PK-5 Literacy Assessments

RtI Advisory Group (continued and revised)

Purpose: To strengthen intervention and extension approaches and resources

across the district

RtI Advisory for 6-12 Literacy

RtI Advisory for K-12 Behavior (PBIS- possible UW link)

2015-2016 Professional Development: Professional Development

Develop and implement a plan for supporting teachers with differentiated

instruction and the specific needs of students with Dyslexia, Highly Capable,

ELL and more)

Integrate into PLC’s whenever possible developing common understandings of

RtI as the Promise and specific vocabulary, approaches and systems (Principals

and Classroom Teachers)

Combine Literacy Intervention Specialists, ELL Specialists and Special

Education teachers for collective professional development refining

understandings of RtI. (District Purple Fridays)

Develop strand options for choice professional development days with a focus

on Dyslexia, Highly Capable Literacy Learning, Differentiation in a reading and

writing workshop.

Para-educator thread to support participation in understanding RtI and their role.

(Thursday early release time)

19

2015-2016 Student Growth Collaboration:

Implement SGC’s with administrator choice in method of

participation:

o School-Based facilitation five times per year with capacity

building support pre and post each SGC (See Student Growth

Collaboration Proposal 2015-2016)

o Principal and Leadership Team professional development at

district-facilitated SGC sessions (Fall, winter, spring)

2016-2017

Year 2

Form Advisory Group for Math RtI

2017-2018

Year 3

Full implementation of RtI, PBIS and Math with strategic support

*Calendar will be refined based on the Professional Development Model for

2015-2016

Additional Considerations

Culture and Equity

o Begin analyzing program data for equity and disproportionate

representation of students of color and socioeconomic status.

RtI Beyond P-5 Literacy

o 2015-2016 Begin 6-12 Literacy and K-12 Behavior study and

recommendation

o 2016-2017 Begin math K=12 study and recommendation

20

Our work defining RtI will help us fulfill the Bellingham Promise:

An RtI system honors each

child with supports to help

him/her be successful!

An RtI system brings

classroom teachers,

specialists and parents

together as a team.

Students achieve at high

levels when we identify

their specific needs for

intervention or extension.

21

This year we will focus our work on Preschool-5th

grade literacy and our work will lay the

foundation for future RtI components.

Implementation of RtI will

provide equity for all

students meeting them

where they are and

supporting or extending

them in differentiated ways.

RtI encompasses all five of the Key Strategies

of our Bellingham Promise.

RtI ensures systematic and

equitable interventions

across all schools.

RtI assures early identification of

needs and focused interventions

or extensions for all learners.

22