DRAFT May 27 20091
MN RtI Center
Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention
A module for pre-service and in-service professional development
MN RTI CenterModule author: Amy Reschly, PhD
www.scred.k12.mn.us click on RTI Center
DRAFT May 27 20092
MN RtI Center2
MN RTI Center Training Modules
This module was developed with funding from the MN legislature It is part of a series of modules available from the MN RTI Center
for use in preservice and inservice training:
Module Title Authors
1. RTI Overview Kim Gibbons & Lisa Stewart
2. Measurement and RTI Overview Lisa Stewart
3. Curriculum Based Measurement and RTI Lisa Stewart
4. Universal Screening (Benchmarking): (Two parts)
What, Why and How
Using Screening Data
Lisa Stewart
5. Progress Monitoring: (Two parts)
What, Why and How
Using Progress Monitoring Data
Lisa Stewart & Adam Christ
6. Evidence-Based Practices Ann Casey
7. Problem Solving in RTI Kerry Bollman
8. Differentiated Instruction Peggy Ballard
9. Tiered Service Delivery and Instruction Wendy Robinson
10. Leadership and RTI Jane Thompson & Ann Casey
11. Family involvement and RTI Amy Reschly
12. Five Areas of Reading Kerry Bollman
13. Schoolwide Organization Kim Gibbons
DRAFT May 27 20093
MN RtI Center
Overview
Background Systems theory: student learning in context
Response to Intervention
Current trends in the family engagement literature
RTI-Family Engagement Model
DRAFT May 27 20094
MN RtI Center
Background Questions
Who is responsible for student learning? What does No Child Left Behind imply about responsibility?
When a student isn’t doing well at school, to what do we attribute this? Differences in how families and schools would answer this
question?
What supports student learning at home? At school? Are there differences in how families and schools would
answer this question?
MN RtI CenterDRAFT May 27 2009 5
Child
Chrono-System
across time
Child
Chrono-System
across time
Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner
DRAFT May 27 20096
MN RtI Center
Three-Legged Stool: Students, Families, and Schools
DRAFT May 27 20097
MN RtI Center Reschly & Christenson, 2009
Ecological Systems Theory: Families and Schools Many studies and policies (re. families and schools)
were developed without a theoretical framework Needed to advance research and guide practice
Jordan et al., 2001
Systems Theory Provides the theoretical foundation for working across families
and schools to promote student success Focus on understanding child development (learning and
behavior) in context Reciprocal interactions and relationships among these contexts
(families and schools) over time
DRAFT May 27 20098
MN RtI Center Christenson & Anderson, 2002
Learning Context An interwoven structure of circumstances and people
that surround the child across systems at a given point in time and over time.
Consider the “affordance value” of this context—or how the learning context facilitates or impedes child adaptation to challenges and demands of schooling.
Question should be… How does the social context support or thwart the development
of student competence (behavior, academics, socially) for students across settings and time?
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009 9
Ecological Systems theory applied to understanding student achievement ==
Learning Environment
The Total Learning Environment For An
Individual Student
Academic Behavior
Home SupportInstructional Support
Home-School Support
Ysseldyke & Christenson
DRAFT May 27 200910
MN RtI Center
Implications We cannot understand student competence or
difficulties as a function of home or school – must consider the entire system (children, family, school, community, peers)
Schools and homes are the primary socializing and learning contexts for students. Relationships between families and school personnel are important for promoting competence -> Mesosystem
DRAFT May 27 200911
MN RtI Center
Implications (Cont’d)
Risk is not located within student, home, or school systems, but distributed across systems and represented in interactions. Pianta & Walsh, 1996
High risk: lack of congruence, poor relationships between home and school
Low risk: family and school systems are well-functioning, positive relationships promote congruence and shared responsibility
DRAFT May 27 200912
MN RtI Center
Assessment & Intervention Questions
What are typical assessment practices?
Where are interventions implemented?
What does our understanding of ecological systems theory mean for assessment? What about intervention?
DRAFT May 27 200913
MN RtI CenterReschly, Chaffin, Christenson, & Gutkin, 2007
Response to Intervention
Calls for reform over many years to address…
Within child conceptualizations of educational difficulties
Too little time for prevention and early intervention
More rhetoric than action in creating meaningful opportunities for parent engagement
Assessment conducted for the purpose of eligibility determination rather than intervention
Reliance on special education placement as a means of addressing student difficulties
DRAFT May 27 200914
MN RtI Center Reschly et al., 2007
Promise of RTI
May address many of these criticisms Focus on all students Contexts essential to success – implications for assessment
and intervention Families are necessary, not optional
Changes inherent in RTI creating an opportunity to meaningfully engage families Prevention, screening, and early intervention Frequent systematic data collection Focus on Problem-Solving Change from where to teach to how, what and is it working?
to produce optimal student learning
DRAFT May 27 200915
MN RtI Center
Working with Families
The evidence is consistent, positive, and convincing: families have a major influence on their children’s achievement in school and through Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7)
DRAFT May 27 200916
MN RtI Center
Out of School Time
From birth to the age of 18, students spend more than 90% of their time outside of schools. Walberg
Efforts to improve student achievement, and close the achievement gap among various groups of students (e.g., those in poverty, racial/ethnic groups, English learners), must take into account the power of out-of-school time. Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005
DRAFT May 27 200917
MN RtI Center
Families
Families have an enormous impact on student outcomes… but what they do is more important than who they are
Family process variables account for a much greater portion of the variance in achievement (60%) than those related to status (25%)
Kellaghan et al., 1993
DRAFT May 27 200918
MN RtI Center
Mesosystem: Families & Schools
When schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more. Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7)
There has been a gradual deconstruction of the notion that families and schools have separate responsibilities for student learning. Reschly & Christenson, 2009
DRAFT May 27 200919
MN RtI Center
Mesosystem: Congruence
The processes and characteristics that enhance academic achievement are essentially the same - whether found in the home or in the school” Chall
Home predictors of school learning—work habits of the home, academic guidance and support, stimulation to explore and discuss ideas and events, language environment, and academic aspirations and expectations—are comparable to school factors that enhance achievement Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993
DRAFT May 27 200920
MN RtI Center Christenson & Peterson, 2006; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002
Common Factors Across Home-School-Community Related to Student Competence
Shared Standards and Expectations The level of expected performance held by key adults for the
student is congruent across home and school, and reflects a belief that the student can learn.
Consistent Structure The overall routine and monitoring provided by key adults for the
student have been discussed and are congruent across home and school.
Cross-setting Opportunity to Learn The variety of learning options available to the youth during school
hours and outside of school time (i.e., home and community) supports the student’s learning.
(Cont’d on next slide)
DRAFT May 27 200921
MN RtI Center
Common Factors Across Home-School-Community Related to Student Competence (Cont’d)
Mutual Support The guidance provided by, the communication between, and the interest
shown by adults to facilitate student progress in school is effective. It is what adults do on an ongoing basis to help the student learn and achieve.
Positive, Trusting Relationships The amount of warmth and friendliness; praise and recognition; and the
degree to which the adult-youth relationship is positive and respectful. It includes how adults in the home, in the school, and in the community work together to help the student be a learner.
Modeling Parents and teachers demonstrate desired behaviors and commitment
and value toward learning and working hard in their daily lives to the student.
Christenson & Peterson, 2006; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002
DRAFT May 27 200922
MN RtI Center
Family Involvement: A Universally Endorsed Ideal Initiatives, position statements from national
organizations (e.g., PTA, NASP), and legislation (e.g., NCLB, IDEA) related to family involvement Not only ensuring family rights but a universal goal
of encouraging family engagement and involvement in education
Not there yet…. Vision of partnerships among educators and families not reached
22
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009 23
Status of Family Engagement FieldShifting away from… Currently…
Why work with families? How? What works?
Parent involvement Family Involvement/Engagement
School-defined involvement Varied definitions of involvement and support for learning at school and in the home
•Different types of involvement = different outcomes
Activity lists Any number of activities may accomplish a specific goal or outcome (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006).
•Attention to ‘fit’
Evidence-based interventions
Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009
DRAFT May 27 200924
MN RtI Center
Families, Schools and RTI:Evidence-Based Interventions
NCLB, IDEA, Task Forces within APA Divisions What works, for whom, and under what conditions?
Various recent literature reviews and meta-analyses examining family and family-school interventions E.g., Division 16 Task Force (Carlson & Christenson,
2005); Nye, Turner, & Schwartz, 2007; Henderson & Mapp, 2002.
DRAFT May 27 200925
MN RtI Center
Carlson & Christenson, 2005 Areas reviewed: parent training and therapy, consultation, involvement,
and family focused early childhood interventions
Moderate to large effect sizes across areas
Most effective interventions were those with a systems orientation: Collaboration interventions w/ two-way communication, monitoring
and dialogue Focused parent education programs (specific behavior or learning
outcomes) Parent involvement programs with parents as tutors in specific
subjects Parent consultation
DRAFT May 27 200926
MN RtI Center
Meta-Analysis Example: Nye et al., 2007
Effects of parent involvement programs on academic performance of elementary students
Overall positive, significant effects
Most studies in area of reading – stable, moderate effect sizes
Significant moderate effect sizes in math, more variable
Moderator analyses Large effects for intervention programs in which parents
provided some reward or incentive for student performance, followed by those with parent education/training components
DRAFT May 27 200927
MN RtI Center Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009
Caveats
Much more research needed Directions and issues outlined in Carlson & Christenson, 2005;
Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Ginsburg-Block, Manz, & McWayne, in press; Jordan et al., 2001; Sheridan, 2005, among others.
Effective practices vary across sites Depending on the unique needs of families, students, and
schools and the resources available to families, schools, and communities
Particular programs or strategies may have different effects at different ages Jordan et al., 2001
MN RtI Center
DRAFT May 27 2009 28
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Co-communicators
Co- supporters
Co- learners
Co- teachers
Co- Decision-makers
Moles (1993) Co-Roles
Setting conditions for working with families: Approach, Atmosphere, Attitudes*
*Christenson & Sheridan, 2001
Collaborative problem-solving
Collaborative problem-solving
Figure 1. Family-School Co-Roles and Partnerships in RtI
Reschly (2008b), RTI Action Network
Family-School Co-Roles & Partnerships in RTI
DRAFT May 27 2009 29
MN RtI Center
References• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley.
• Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom? New York: Guilford Press.
• Christenson, S.L., & Anderson, A.R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of the learning context for students' academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 378-393.
• Christenson, S. L., & Carlson, C. (2005). Evidence-based parent and family interventions in school psychology: State of scientifically based practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 525-528. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press.
• Christenson, S. L., & Peterson, C. J. (2006). Family, school, and community influences on children’s learning: A literature review. All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. www.parenting.umn.edu
DRAFT May 27 2009 30
MN RtI Center
References (Cont’d)• Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating
essential connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press.
• Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ginsburg-Block, M., Manz, P. H., & McWayne, C. (in press). Partnering to foster achievement in reading and mathematics. In S.L. Christenson and A.L. Reschly (Eds). Handbook of School Family Partnerships. New York: Routledge.
• Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
• Jordan, C., Orzco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connections. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
• Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B. S. (1993). The home environment and school learning: Promoting parental involvement in the education of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DRAFT May 27 2009 31
MN RtI Center
References (Cont’d)
• Moles, O. (1993). Building school-family partnerships for learning: Workshops for urban educators. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education.
• Nye, C., Turner, H., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Approaches to parent involvement for improving the academic performance of elementary school age children. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/frontend2.asp?ID=9
• Pianta, R., & Walsh, D. B. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. NY: Routledge.
• Reschly, A.L. (2008a). Ecological approaches to working with families. Symposium with Gutkin, T.B., Doll, B.J., Reschly, A.L., Stoiber, K.C., Hintze, J.M., & Conoley, J.C. (2008, August). Ecological Approaches to School Psychological Services: Putting Theory Into Action. Held at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Boston, MA.
• Reschly, A.L. (2008b). Schools, families and response to intervention. Invited piece for the RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning Disabilities. Available on-line at: http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/Family/ar/Schools-Familes-and-Response-to-Intervention
DRAFT May 27 2009 32
MN RtI Center
References (Cont’d)
• Reschly, A., Coolong, M. A., Christenson, S. L., & Gutkin, T. B. (2007). Contextual influences and RTI: Critical issues and strategies. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns ,& A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer
• Reschly, A. L, & Christenson, S. L. (2009). Parents as essential partners for fostering students’ learning outcomes. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. Furlong (Eds). A handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 257-272). New York: Routledge.
• Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on evidence-based parent and family interventions: Will what we know now influence what we do in the future? School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 518-524.
• Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 397-400.
• Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., & Bouffard, S. (2005). Participation in youth programs: Enrollment, attendance, and engagement. [Special Issue] New Directions for Youth Development, 105.
• Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (2002). FAAB: Functional Assessment of Academic Behavior. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
DRAFT May 27 200933
MN RtI Center
Resources
All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. www.parenting.umn.edu
RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning Disabilities. www.rtinetwork.org
Harvard Family Research Projecthttp://www.hfrp.org/
Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, Dr. Susan Sheridan, University of Nebraska. http://cehs.unl.edu/edpsych/graduate/spCbc.shtml
DRAFT May 27 200934
MN RtI Center
Quiz
1.) Systems theory does what? A.) Provides a theoretical foundation for working across
families and schools B.) Focuses on understanding child development C.) Studies learning and behavior in context D.) Looks at reciprocal interactions and relationships among
families and schools over time E.) All of the above
DRAFT May 27 200935
MN RtI Center
Quiz (Cont’d)
2.) A promise of Response to Intervention is that families are ________not _________.
3.) Name three out of the six common factors across home-school-community related to student competence.
DRAFT May 27 200936
MN RtI Center
Quiz (Cont’d)
4.) Caveats of RTI: True or False 1- Much more research is needed 2- Effective practices do not vary by site 3- Particular programs/strategies may have
the same effects at different ages
DRAFT May 27 200937
MN RtI Center
The End
Note: The MN RTI Center does not endorse any particular product. Examples used are for instructional purposes only.
Special Thanks: Thank you to Dr. Ann Casey, director of the MN RTI Center, for
her leadership Thank you to Aimee Hochstein, Kristen Bouwman, and Nathan
Rowe, Minnesota State University Moorhead graduate students, for editing work, writing quizzes, and enhancing the quality of these training materials