RTI In Louisiana

Diana Jones, PhD, NCSP

State RTI CoordinatorLiteracy and Numeracy

Louisiana Department of Educationdiana.jones@la.gov

Education in 70-80’s

Instruction defined by system and teacher Expectation that students would achieve

to arbitrary grade standard Students who did not meet grade

standard, failed or were identified as needing special services

Outcomes

Achievement gap increased between “wealthy” schools and “poor” schools, SPED students and GEN ED students

High School drop out rate increased

Language Development & Poverty 1995 study by Hart and Risley found a

relationship between socio-economic level and vocabulary acquisition. environmental factors impact language

significantly by age three. vocabularies of children from professional families

are significantly larger than those in families receiving public assistance

child in a professional family hears 11 million words per year while a child in a public assistance family hears just 3 million words a year

1997 Paradigm Shift Major focus shift—what are the educational

outcomes for all students Late 1990’s--standardized instructional pacing

—bench-marking, Louisiana GLE’s developed by 2003

Emphasis toward analysis of high stakes testing, school-improvement based on objective assessment tools

Struggling student progress is monitored through graphs of skill “response to interventions”

Education for All StudentsGoal is to provide systematic quality instruction

to all students according to their need.

National Research Council with proactive research determined that the RTI process is the most effective way to meet this need

Louisiana RTI History Walk 2004—Reading First (RF) & IDEA Re-authorization 2005—LDE staff attended RTI process in-service

RF staff and some LEAs received RTI PD 2006—K-12 Literacy Grant funded (RTI component)

RTI PD to Appraisal & Gen. Ed. by student

Some LEAs began to implement RTI 2007—RF & Literacy gather momentum

NO RSD instituted district-wide RTI with manual 2008—Revision of bulletins 1706 & 1508 include RTI

Literacy & Numeracy-- ELFA & ENFA 2009—LDE Senior Staff approve RTI support

BESE approves RTI policy

Essential Elements of RTI

Tiered Model within the general education setting

Powerful research-based core curriculum Universal screening of all students Data driven decisions to determine

appropriate instruction and research-based intervention according to need

Progress monitoring Fluid process with high expectations

Tiered Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

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

Core Curriculum

Research based Aligned with state standards Differentiated instruction Engaged Learning Enrichment Opportunities

Universal Screening

Assess all students Some Academic Universal Screeners:

State Assessments: LEAP, iLEAP, GEE LEAP Query

Benchmark Assessments CBM

DIBELS Probes (Intervention Central, AIMSweb)

Name Correct Words Performance Summary Instructional Action

Adams, Ken 67.0 Established Continue Current Program

Beniso, Karen 54.0 Established Continue Current Program

Camp, Michael 42.0 Established Continue Current Program

Denny, Jillian 41.0 Established Continue Current Program

Emers, Akirah 40.0 Established Continue Current Program

Fellows, Mark 33.0 Established Continue Current Program

Gharem, Danielle 31.0 Established Continue Current Program

Henson, Colin 26.0 Established Continue Current Program

Inez, Mike 24.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Junero, Shay 23.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Knight, Shelly 23.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Lawson, James 22.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Mitchell, Kelly 21.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Nay, Tommy 19.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Omi, Lui 18.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Peterson, Franklin 17.0 Emerging Consider Strategic Interventions

Quertes, Julio 16.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Ripkema, Nobuo 16.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Smith, Dani 12.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Thompson, Sarah 10.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Unetso, Ima 10.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Vector, Christopher 8.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Washington, Barbi 5.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Xavier, Kesha 3.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

Young, Kristen 2.0 Deficient Begin Intensive Intervention Process

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70K

en A

.

Kar

en B

.

Mic

hael

C.

Jill

D.

Aki

rah

E.

Mar

k F

.

Dan

ielle

G.

Col

in H

.

Mik

e I.

Sha

y J.

She

lly K

.

Jam

es L

.

Kel

ly M

.

Tom

my

N.

Lui O

.

Fra

nk P

.

Julio

Q.

Nob

uo R

.

Dan

i S.

Sar

ah T

.

Ima

U.

Chr

is V

.

Bar

bi W

.

Kes

ha X

.

Kris

ten

Y.

Sco

res

Students

Instruction and Intervention Delivery

Tier I: Core Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum and enrichment activities—students at grade level

Tier II—Core plus specific interventions aimed at building targeted proficiencies provided to small groups for additional 20-40 minutes, 4-5 times

per week may need class-wide interventions for strategic support

Tier III– Core plus specific interventions targeted individually or in very small groups for intensive support in reading, math or both for additional 50 + minutes

Effective Intervention Plans

RTI based on use of best available research based interventions

Plans incorporate clear goals and explicit expectations for both the student and the teacher (track progress toward target)

Interventions require Integrity Fidelity Diligence

0

20

40

60

80

100Class

Goal

Egbert

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

inu

te

Monitor Egbert’s Progress Relative to

Goal

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Class Growth

Egbert goal line

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassGoalEgbertGoal 2

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

inu

te

Continue Intervention and Monitor Progress

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Class Growth

Egbert goal line

ChangeIntervention

Change Goal

Progress Monitoring

Analyzes progress Data used for instructional decisions Determines need to change intervention

or instruction Comprehensive process allows sufficient

time to determine impact of intervention and instruction

LDOE’s EAGLE program

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70K

en A

.

Kar

en B

.

Aki

rah

E.

Jill

D.

Mar

k F.

Mic

hael

C.

Mik

e I.

Col

in H

.

Dan

ielle

G.

Sha

y J.

She

lly K

.

Jam

es L

.

Kel

ly M

.

Fran

k P

.

Julio

Q

Tom

my

N.

Nob

uo R

.

Kris

ten

Y.

Lui O

.

Dan

i S.

Sar

ah T

.

Chr

is V

.

Ima

U.

Kes

ha X

.

Bar

bi W

.

Sco

res

Students

Data Federal, State, and District emphasis on

data at all levels Used to assess improvement or support

needs in school academics, behavior, drop-out & high-school graduation rates

For individual students--data analysis of trend lines and goals

Need for Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring Data Management System

New millennium mantra:“Show me the data”

Meet Exit Criteria

Grade Level

Learners

Tier 1 Instruction for All Students

Universal Screening of Core Content (3/4#)

Struggling Learners who :No Previous

Formal Intervention

Process

Tier 2, Intv ‘A’ Not Effective

Tier 2, Intv ‘A’ & ‘B’ Not Effective,

Tier 2 Intervention ‘A’

Tier 2 Intervention ‘B’

Tier 3 Intervention

(Custom)

Problem Solving Comm

Image modified by Coulter - Thanks to Sharon Vaughn for the original image

How are Things

Working ?

Suspect a

Disability ?

Special Education ReferralsFollows Bulletin 1508, based on the

Federal Regulations. Supports: parent involvement data driven decisions

Proactive RTI process reduces over-identification of SPED students

SPED reading referrals in Reading 1st schools were reduced from 53% of total referrals to 19% of total referrals

State RTI Plan to Date BESE approved RTI Policy June 2009—in

review process General Education Initiative

RTI aligned with Literacy & Numeracy ELFA & ENFA model schools

RTI Coordinator in place Task Force:

in process Developing Louisiana RTI Plan Developing Louisiana RTI Process Guide

Distribute plan and provide support to districts.

District RTI Design Administrative support Framework for reading, math and

behavior Scientifically based instruction and

interventions School-level Leadership/RTI Team RTI manual to communicate process Process for collecting and evaluating data

School Level Leadership Team Team designated by principal

ENFA schools—Team includes principal, numeracy coach, district supervisor, 3 numeracy teachers including one SPED teacher

Team drives data decisions Sub-set team meetings

RTI Team (review intervention data) School improvement/academics

PBS Team (behavior data) Referral Team (possible referral for Special

Education)

RTI Challenges

Recognition of Paradigm Shift. Move focus to system change and

responsibility

Fidelity to the intervention Scheduling Delivery Personnel Funding

Impact Students—improved educational outcomes

improve self-esteem and provide a foundation for learning

Teachers—Instructional support & data leads to affirmation of effective teaching

Schools—Provides a systematic process to reduce over-identification, disproportionality, and address school improvement

Families—positive student outcomes empower families

Test Adolescent Literacy Schools

Non-Adolescent Literacy Schools

LEAP +7.79 +4.12

iLEAP +11.34 +4.18

**increase = weighted average for 2008 and 2009 scores – weighted average for 2006 scores

Website Resources National Center on Response to Intervention

http://www.rti4success.org Florida Center for Reading Research

http://www.fcrr.org Intervention Central www.interventioncentral.org Dr. Joe Witt www.joewitt.org Oregon Reading Center

http://www.reading.uoregon.edu What Works Clearinghouse

www.whatworks.ed.gov Tiers Team -- Dr. Alan Coulter

www.accountabilitydata.org Louisiana Dept. of Educa. www.louisianaschools.net

Class

of

2022!