How Will RtI Work in Early Childhood Education?
Robin Miller YoungStudent Services Coordinator
Prairie Children PreschoolIndian Prairie SD#204, Aurora, IL
Contributions to a panel discussion at the First Annual RtI in Early Childhood Summit,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, Wednesday, 10-14-09
Jill’s “A–ha” moment . . .
Jill’s A-ha Moment:
Volunteered to participate with eight other teachers in Project ELI (Early Literacy Initiative), a university (NIU) & school district (#204) collaborative partnership to examine links among assessment, curriculum and instruction, and student achievement.
Jill’s A-ha Moment:
Tier 1 = Creative Curriculum with input from ELLCO and collaborative teaming. Tier 2 = Uses IGDIs to determine “at-risk”; then, implements Sound Start. Used Mastery Model (CBA discrete trial) and GOM (IGDIs) to monitor progress.Hands me the protocols . .
Kelly’s “A–ha” moment . . .
Kelly’s A-ha moment . . .
Attended a required, building-wide presentation on Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS). Gathers classroom data on incidents of problem behavior.
Kelly’s A-ha moment . . .
Starts to teach “Be Ready, Be Respectful and Be Safe”using Cool Tools developed by ECE PBIS team. What she learned about combining PBIS and an early literacy and language initiative . ..
Megan’s “A–ha” moment . . .
Megan’s A-ha moment . .
Participates in district-wide four-step “Problem-Solving” approach to RtI (NASDSE).Conducts culminating application “Project”with her classroom team.Uses data from multiple sources (ASQ domain score, classroom work samples, parent survey) to examine skills.
Megan’s A-ha moment . .
Problem Identification, then Problem Analysis stage; develops hypotheses about low performance and tests the hypotheses.Develops skill-based intervention based on hypotheses; implements and the evaluates after 6 weeks; adjusts program and continues intervention.What she shared with colleagues . .
How did these “A – ha” moments about RtI practices develop?
I Systems perspective on effective Tier 1 instruction; overview of Tiers 2 and 3.
II Decision-making models.III Scaling up strategies.IV Next steps.
Systems Perspective on Effective Tier 1 Instruction
I Systems Perspective on Effective Tier 1 Instruction
District: Preschool - HS; metro-Chicago; two sites.Culture: Shared leadership style; empowered staff teams; ILT developed Vision, Mission, Values, Plan. Program: 21 EC/At-Risk/ECSE blended classrooms plus Phono class, and self-contained classrooms (non-categorical and Directed Teaching); two & ½hours per day, 4 days a week.Integrated Systems: General Ed. and Special Ed. are integrated and operated in a blended model.
Systems Perspective on Tier 1
Students: Cohorts of “threes” or “fours”, based on age-eligibility for kindergarten; equal boys and girls, ethnic make-up shifting to more Hispanic.
Structures: Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) and classroom support teams; new; Collaborative Team Time (PLC), twice a month on Friday PMs.
Teachers: All are Gen. Ed. and Spec. Ed. certified.
Systems Perspective on Tier 1
Transdisciplinary teams: SLPs 1:3 classrooms to support instruction at all tiers; school psych., social worker, OT, PT, nurse, to support classroom functioning.PBIS: Across school and in all classrooms 6+ years.Expectations: Plan, deliver and evaluate impact of core (Creative Curriculum) and supplemental curricula (Sound Start) and strategies (Sound Jar).
Systems Perspective on Tier 1
Planning process: Start with “target skills” linked to Illinois ELS and Creative Curriculum objectives, then build unit of study around skills.
Instruction: Blend large-group & small-group instruction for all children; balance child-initiated with teacher-directed, movement toward more “intentional” teaching and more explicit, adult-directed instruction.
Systems Perspective: Assessment
CBA: Discrete trial data of target skills to help complete Creative Curriculum Checklist three times a year.
GOM: ELL-IGDIs given three times per year: “Threes”: Picture Naming only now “Fours”: Alliteration, Rhyming & Picture Naming.
Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO); IEP only.
Systems Perspective: Assessment
Child Find: ASQ for students from EI, Prairie Children preschoolers (in combination with classroom information), parent phone calls for private preschool, at home, etc.
CSE: Arena-style, play-based assessments; four appointments per week. Flexibility for PCP students to be done by classroom team.
Systems Perspective: Assessment
What question are you trying to answer? Examine program-wide data; trends by sub-groups (see example).Link to elementary level.Develop “at-risk” indicators.Make it easy for data to be accessed so it will be used for decision-making.
PCP 2007-08 Service Code - Average Scores Rhyming 4s
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Time of Year
Num
ber C
orre
ct in
2 M
inut
es
PrELI Av = 220+ Ss 7 8 12
GenEd. = 75% of Total ; 232 6 9.8 12.7
SpEd = 25% of Total ; 77 3 5.3 9.7
Fall 07 Winter 08 Spring 08
System’s level “A-ha” moment; Evaluating the “R” in RtI 07-08 . . .
If you are a boy . .If you are Hispanic or African-American . . . If you are a student with an IEP or you are a Pre-K/Preschool for All student . . .
Your chances of closing the achievement gap with other district students is slim. What to do?
What to do to close the gap?
Improve treatment integrity across core.More “core” time per week, and time to individualize:Shift to five-day program for at-risk (Pre-K and PFA) students and those with IEPs. Fifth day is without “tuition-paying” students. More explicit instruction: Smaller groups, more explicit, planned teacher models instead of peer models; more judiciously considered skill scope and sequence (Sound Start), more individual response turns instead of choral responding.
What to do to close the gap?
Additional program efforts underway 09-10: More carefully chosen target vocabulary; evidence-based work of Judy Montgomery and Isabel Beck, and aligned strategies to ensure acquisition and retention. Friday-only literature based units. Address needs of ELL students with Bilingual program and ELL teacher. Parent involvement piece.
Decision-making Models
II Decision-making models
Project ELI (05-06) was a “Standard Protocol”approach; all Ss at or below 25th %ile who were low on PA skills were included. It worked well, but we needed something more systematic.District decides (05-06) to operate in a “Problem-solving” model (George Batsche, NASDSE); more individualized approach.
Decision-making Models
We are developing a hybrid of the two for EC.Coaching model of staff development; train whole teams and they apply the steps to a real problem. Present project to colleagues.Coach from Illinois ASPIRE helps us; 6 EC PS coaches now. Three psychs, two social workers, one teacher; maintain and generalize skills. “Sophomore” effect.
Decision-making Models
Meet weekly (PSR) to see how it is going; “Problem solve” about PSing; target staff development including in-service, team and individual coaching. Pre and post assessment of skills and attitudes; ASPIRE Implementation Framework and state of Illinois RtI plan.
Define ProblemSpecific students in the Owl afternoon class performed at the 25 percentile or lower on the IGDIs assessment in January. If they stay at this performance level, they are likely to have difficulty learning essential language and literacy skills known to predictors of later reading proficiency.
Problem AnalysisStudents have been exposed to
many early language and literacy skills through incidental
presentations from September to January, but skills have not been taught to mastery. Need more explicit models, a scope and
sequence needs to be specified and implemented, increase
number of OTRs in large group, small group and 1:1, monitor progress more closely and
intensify more quickly if needed. Implement Plan
Sound Jar, “Train” activity, Rhyming games, Books and MusicSnapping Turtle game
EvaluateIGDIs, mastery data, and anecdotal recordings revealed that the intervention facilitated positive group and individual outcomes in all the children including those at risk (ELL, IEP, PreK). See example of Brain who received most intensive instruction.
Early Language and Literacy Problem-solving Example
Data Collection ExampleSnapping Turtle Game:
Mastery Testing Blend Spoken C – VC Sounds; 5-15-07 RMY Carson Andrew TR Collin Brendan P – an (+) - M – an + (-) F – an (+) - G – an (+) - H – an (+) - W – an + (-) Notes: 4/6
P – an (+) - M – an (+) - F – an (+) - G – an (+) - H – an + (-) W – an (+) - Notes: 5/6, terrific work! Let’s move . . .
P – an (+) - M – an (+) - F – an (+) - G – an (+) - H – an + (-) W – an + (-) Notes: 4/6
P – an (+) - M – an (+) - F – an + (-) G – an + (-) H – an + (-) W – an + (-) Notes: 2/6 Repeats c-vc; does not blend
P – an (+) - M – an (+) - F – an (+) - G – an (+) - H – an (+) - W – an (+) - Notes: 6/6 WOW! Ready to move on
Test each child individually. After presenting each stimulus, and eliciting a response, judge the response as correct (+) or incorrect (-) and circle the correct code. Tally the number of correct and incorrect responses out of the number presented. Write pertinent anecdotal notes; apply decision rule to determine next step (booster session, short-term small group, next skill).
Data Collection – Attendance LogSnapping Turtle Game: Treatment Integrity Log;
Intervention “Dosage” (Six minutes per lesson) 5-07 RMY Carson Andrew TR Collin Brendan Day 1: 4-24 0 X X X X Day 2: 4-26 0 X X X X Day 3: 5-1 X X 0 X X Day 4: 5-3 X X X X 0 Day 5: 5-8 X X X X X Day 6: 5-10 X X X X X Day 7: 5-15 MT MT M T MT MT Total Instruction Time
24 mins.
36 mins.
30 mins.
36 mins.
30 mins.
0 = Absent X = Present MT = Mastery Testing Note: Could also have coded how they were grouped for each lesson (how many students in a group, and which ones were together).
Treatment Integrity ChecklistSnapping Turtle Treatment Integrity Protocols Page 1
Please indicate the degree to which the following instructional components were present by putting an X in the box next to each statement:
Always Usually Sometimes Never Teacher: 1. Put six minutes on timer; started the timer before starting the lesson. 2. Reviewed how to respond to a finger snap with individual sounds. 3. She used only the following sounds: long and short vowels and /f/, /w/, /h/, /t/, /p/, /d/, /g/, /m/, /n/, /b/. 4. She required students to respond on a fingersnap. TI Checklist by RM Young; 4 items of 20 total; 012309
Snapping Turtle AcceptabilitySnapping Turtle Treatment Acceptability Protocol Page 1
Indicate your agreement with the following statements by placing an X in the box next to each statement. Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Statements: 1. The time need to implement it is acceptable to me. 2. I would suggest the use of it to other educators. 3. The direct instruction format is acceptable to me for “universal level” instruction. 3. Most educators would find it appropriate for 4-year-old children. 5. This intervention should prove effective in improving the student’s early literacy difficulties. Five of 20 items, April 27, 2007 Adapted by RMYoung from Witt and Elliott (1985) in T.R. Kratochwill (ed.), Advances in School Psychology (Vol.4, pp. 251-288)
IGDIs: Brian in Owl PM class
Scaling up Strategies
III Scaling up Strategies
Work within the program’s strengths and resources; lesson of the “ICPS” curriculum.We had strong connection to Lynette Chandler, so we built on it; used in-house and external “experts”.Give staff a voice; see where they want to go with expectations. Let them develop specifics. Create public school(s) and university links.
Scaling Up Strategies
Link with district-wide initiatives, training, school board goals, etc. Make your presence known . . .Think widely about stakeholders. Start small with volunteer efforts; sell it at staff meetings – celebrate! Write for mini-grants; JNMFL, ISPA & IAASE.
Scaling up Strategies
Focus on linking assessment to C & I Tier 1.Combine school-wide positive behavior system with early language and literacy initiative.Clarify expectations and change structures over time if necessary.Must have program-wide view of classroom data; we don’t have that with portfolios or the CC Checklists.
Scaling up Strategies
You CAN do this, even if you are a single focus program; i.e, just community , just Pre-K “at-risk” or ECSE.Recognize influence and impact of change; create a sense of urgency.Emphasize links to elementary level.Hold each other accountable; own all of it.
Holding for another picture
Current Challenges and Next Steps
IV Current challenges and IV Current challenges and ““next next stepssteps””: Program Leadership : Program Leadership
Continuing creating Continuing creating ““ownershipownership”” of these of these practices; development of culture and practices; development of culture and climate to support continued movement climate to support continued movement toward RtI and PS practices; therapists toward RtI and PS practices; therapists Clashing models; is there one Clashing models; is there one ““right wayright way””to do this?to do this?Outreach to EI, private preschools, Outreach to EI, private preschools, elementary level, central office Student elementary level, central office Student Services Services
Current Challenges and Current Challenges and ““next Stepsnext Steps””: : Program DevelopmentProgram Development
Skills in data collection; CBA versus CBM Skills in data collection; CBA versus CBM model, treatment integrity . . . progress! model, treatment integrity . . . progress! GOM benchmarked goal writing (IEP) & GOM benchmarked goal writing (IEP) & progress monitoring Tier 3progress monitoring Tier 3Math: linking assessment to interventionMath: linking assessment to interventionNew bilingual program and ELL support; New bilingual program and ELL support; piloted Prepiloted Pre--K IPT and Spanish IGDIs. K IPT and Spanish IGDIs.
Current Challenges and Current Challenges and ““next Stepsnext Steps””: : Program EvaluationProgram Evaluation
Redefine DD and SL eligibility process within Redefine DD and SL eligibility process within RtI parameters. RtI parameters. Finalize data analysis on Project ELI students Finalize data analysis on Project ELI students who will be in third grade in 09who will be in third grade in 09--10 (look at 10 (look at predictive validity with ISAT).predictive validity with ISAT).PATHsPATHs; piloted ; piloted SDQsSDQs; longitudinal data. ; longitudinal data. Data warehouse . . . Easy and efficient access. Data warehouse . . . Easy and efficient access.
Current Challenges and Current Challenges and ““next Stepsnext Steps””: : Program EvaluationProgram Evaluation
Examine IGDIs, Examine IGDIs, PNIsPNIs, CCC inter, CCC inter--correlation.correlation.Staff input and reflection; what does an early, Staff input and reflection; what does an early, effective and efficient program look like effective and efficient program look like -- how how will we know it when we see it? will we know it when we see it? Pre and post Pre and post ““attitudeattitude”” survey with Christine.survey with Christine.Implementation framework and a multiImplementation framework and a multi--year year plan. plan.
Robin’s “A-ha” moment
Math Summer Curriculum Committee.Several years of developing tiered reading interventions . . What about math?Kristine; NBPTS and doctoral aspirations.They will do this with me, or without me!The next initiative . . .Math PNIs with Robin Hojnoski, Lehigh University.
2008
Thank you!
References:Chandler, L., Miller-Young, R., Nylander, D., Shields, L., Ash, J., Bauman, B., Butts, J., Black, K., Geraghty, P., Hafer, M., Lay, A., Mitera, B., Richardson, D., Steffen, K., & Summers, D. (2008). Promoting early literacy skills within daily activities and routines in preschool classrooms. Young Exceptional Children, 11, 2-16.
Shields, L., Snow, L., & Young, R.M. (2009, February). Developing and implementing a preschool RtI/problem-solving model. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), Boston, MA. (http://www.nasponline.org; Convention 2009, Session MS087)
References:
Young, R.M. & Chandler, L.K. (2007, October). Leadership strategies and a change process for improved early literacy practices. Paper presented at the meeting of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC), Niagara Falls, Canada.
Young, R.M., Chandler, L.K., Shields, L., Laubenstein, P., Butts, J., & Black, K. (2008, May/June). Project ELI: Improving early literacy outcomes; An early literacy and language initiative that works Principal.
References: Young, R.M., Schrubbe, B., Snow, L., Herrell, K., & Chandler, L.K. (2009). Preschool response to intervention (RtI) and problem solving (PS): Intervening early, effectively and efficiently with young learners to promote early academic success for all children. Paper presented at the meeting of Illinois ASPIRE, Dekalb, IL. Sessions M100D,_M230D www.illinoisaspire.org/north/document.php?folder_id=241.
Young, R.M., Shields, L., & Chandler, L.K. (2009, Fall). The emerging early childhood (EC) RtI movement: Promoting early schooling successes for three to five-year-olds. InCase, a newsletter of the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE), Council for Exceptional Children (CEC).
