The University School Partnership we are highlighting within this study involves Bourbonnais School District #53 primarily Liberty Intermediate and Alan b. Shepard Schools. The demographics of these 2 schools are as follows.
Current Research in response to interventions supports Collaboration as the key to successful implementation of resources. The most freequently mentioned disposition within our research is the importance of all parties being able to work together towards a common goal… in our case increasing student reading achievement.
Our University School Partnership Values Progress Monitoring that teaches our students to use assessment to monitor student progress; The partnership shows our students how to use evidence based interventions and to differentiate instruction based on a student’s need.
Within our on campus coursework students work with a 9 Factor Checklist to evaluate whether an Educational Intervention is supported by Scientifically Based Research.
Our data displays progress in reading development for the population of children served. Furthermore, our percentage of reading growth as determined by MAP assessments show we are improving in our instructional methods.
We have two data sets to discuss this afternoon regarding our student progress in reading achievement. On this slide you can see the grade 5 pretest data in the deep red percentiles and the post test data in the orange percentiles. The data is derived from Fall testing of Measures of Academic Progress in a one year longitudinal study.
Our second Data Set Displays pretest data from 2010 in red and post test data in green. Once again the data is derived from Fall and Spring testing of Measures of Academic Progress in a one year longitudinal study. At this time we would like for you to see our ONU students in action within our University School Partnership.
Response to Intervention:University – School Partnership Dr. Darcel Y. Brady, Dr. Dena Reams, Dr. Sue Moore
University – School District• Olivet Nazarene University, Bourbonnais, Illinois• Liberty Intermediate and Alan Shepard Elementary Schools Bourbonnais, IL
Facilitators• Dr. Sue Moore, Professor, specialty- General Methods and Diverse Populations• Dr. Dena Reams, Associate Professor, Reading Specialist Coordinator• Dr. Darcel Brady, Professor, specialty- Education Public Policy and History and Philosophy of Education
INTRODUCTIONS• Please introduce yourself and include the following information: – Name – College or University – Course where your candidates are introduced to the concepts of Response to Intervention (RtI).
• Every child must be able to read, but not all of our children find learning to read an easy process; therefore we must put in place a process to assist students who are struggling readers.• Enter Response to Intervention.
Overview of Response to Intervention• What is RtI?• Where did it originate?• Do we actually need it?• How does it work?
Response to Intervention• The Response to Intervention (RtI) was an initiative included in the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004.• The initiative was to be implemented in all of America’s public schools by the 2008 school year.
What is RtI?• RtI: –Focuses especially on reading, math and behavior. –A high quality intervention by teachers to meet students’ needs before placing the students into special needs categorizations
What is RtI?• Prior to RtI there was a separation of students with learning disabilities and students in the general education classrooms.• With the movement towards inclusion in the classrooms, RtI has opened the door for all students to be the recipients of research- based high quality interventions.
Response to Intervention• The reason RtI is in place is because we know that “providing rigorous intervention when students are younger and before they have “failed” can actually turn them around and make them proficient on grade level with their peers” (Brown-Chidsey, Bronaugh, & McGraw, 2009, p.1).
Response to Intervention Model• The Sharon Vaughn model of RtI has proven to be the most used of all of the models.• The Vaughn model includes all of the students in the classroom through its 3-tier approach.
Response to Intervention Model–Sharon Vaughn’s 3-Tier Model • Tier 1 – Primary –Universal –Core curriculum for all students –Can reach 80% of student body
Response to Intervention Model–Sharon Vaughn’s 3-Tier Model • Tier 2 –Secondary –Strategic –Supplemental –Including Tier 1 95% of all students
Response to Intervention Model–Sharon Vaughn’s 3-Tier Model • Tier 3 –Tertiary –Intensive –Final 5% of student body – Changes of tiers is a change in intensity for students.
University School PartnershipOlivet Nazarene University and Bourbonnais District 53Liberty Intermediate Alan B. Shepherd• 78.4% White • 78.6% White• 8.9% Black • 7.7% Black• 5.5% Hispanic • 5.9% Hispanic• 3.6% Asian • 2.2% Asian• 26.7% Free/Reduced Lunch • 33.1% Free/Reduced Lunch
Our RtI Collaborative Teams• RtI teams are coached by effective instructional leaders who believe all students can and will learn.• Successful teams engage in: – Collaborative planning, – Communicate with all stake holders, – Use data to problem-solve students’ intervention needs – Celebrate teacher/student learning by creating and sharing student academic growth and achievement.
Our RtI Partnership Values Progress Monitoring• As stated by Mellard (2008) Response to Intervention integrates:Assessment and intervention within a multi-level systems tomaximize students at risk for poor learning outcomes• Monitor student progress,• Provide evidence-based interventions• Adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness. (p. 3)
9 Factor Checklist: How to Evaluate Whether an Educational Intervention is Supported by Scientifically-Based Research. Checklist taken/developed from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National center for Education Evaluation, http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/index.html1. The research study used randomized controlled trials: ________________2. The trial proved the strategy to be effective in two types of school settings: ______________3. The trial was completed in a setting similar to your school setting: ______________4. The study clearly described the intervention, who administered it, who received it: ______________5. The study told how the intervention differed from what the control group received: ______________6. The study described how the intervention is supposed to affect student outcomes: ______________
9 Factor Checklist: How to Evaluate Whether an Educational Intervention is Supported by Scientifically-Based Research. Checklist taken/developed from U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National center for Education Evaluation, http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/index.html7. The study used outcome measures that are valid… For example to test academic achievement a study should use well-established tests that accurately measure true skill levels: (Woodcock- Johnson, Psycho educational Battery, the Stanford Achievement Test, MAP, etc.) __________________8. The study showed consistent long-term outcomes for the intervention: __________________9. The study made a claim that the intervention is effective. It reported, a. The size of the effect: _____________ b. Statistical tests showing the effect is unlikely to be the result of chance: _____________
Data AnalysisGrade 5 2009-2010 Grade 5 2010-2011• 7% average increase • 17% % average increase• 11 students grew over 10 % • 21 students grew over 10% points • 19 Students grew over 15%• 9 students grew over 15% • 12 Students grew over 20% points • 1 student 44%• 6 students grew over 20% • 1 student 50% points • 1 student 65%• 1 student grew over 35% points
Briefly describe a partnership in which you are involved.• Partnership with:• Goals/Results:• Obstacles –• Benefits –
References• Amau, L. (2009). Whether building a kitchen or building a learning team, collaboration is key. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 59-61.• Brown-Chidsey, R., Bronaugh, L., & McGraw, K. (2009). RTI in the classroom: Guidelines and recipes for success. New York: Guildford Press.• Dolan, E., Tanner, K. (2003). Points of view: Effective partnership between K-12 and higher education. Cell Biology Education, 4, 28-37.• Elliott, J. (2008). Response to intervention: What & why?. School Administrator, 65(8), 14-16.• Greenburg, P. S., Greenburg, R. H., & Antonucci, Y. L. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50(4), 324-333.• Lombardi, R. (2007). The seven keys to team success. National Underwriter, 111(12), 16-17.• Mellard, D. (2008). Federal Guidelines for RTI: National Center on Response to Intervention. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://www.rti4succes.org.• Munoz, M. A. (1999). The vital role of task teams: The total quality management approach on restructuring organizations (Report No. ED-463-700). Louisville, KY: National Education Foundations Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. HE034819)• Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C. W., Robertson-Courtney, P. & Kushner, M. I. (2006). Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 53-63.
References• Osland, J. S., Kolb, D. A., Turner, M. E., & Rubin, I. M. (2007). The organizational behavior: Behavior reader (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.• Rafoth, M. A. & Foriska, T. (2006). Administrator participation in promoting effective problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 130-135.• Roy, P. & Hord, S. (2003). Moving NSDC’s standards into practice: Innovation configurations. Oxford, OH: NSDC.• Runy, L. (2008). High-Performing executive teams. Hospital Health Network, 82(4), 1-6.• Spanneut, G. & Ford, M. (2008). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps principals flourish. Journal of Staff Development, 29(2), 28-33.• Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Progress monitoring as essential practice within response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 10-17.• Tomanek, D. (2005) Points of view: Effective partnership between K-12 and higher education. Cell Biology Education, 4(1), 28-37.• Un, C. A. (2008). “Departmental Intelligence” makes the difference in product improvement. Research Technology Management, 51(1), 58-61.