PBIS (Sugai, Flannery, Bohanon-Edmonson, 2004)

1

Implementing RtI at the Secondary Level:

Why is it Different From the Elementary Level?

What appears to be consistent at this point is that researchers and practitioners

should be willing to commit to a process that will take longer to implement and

assess than implementation at the primary level. (Sugai et al., 2005, p. 13)

What are the key differences that affect systems level change?

1)Larger student enrollment than at elementary Large effects on discipline and organizational structure of the school.

2)Multiple feeder schools means students know fewer of their peers building-wide.

3)Teachers have curriculum specializations.

4)Individualized attention for students from staff is decreased.

5)Larger numbers of staff means less opportunities for school-wide meetings and more time working within departments or enclaves (i.e., more difficult for school-wide discussion and consistency).

6)Academic emphasis becomes increasingly focused on knowledge dissemination and independent skill application.

7)Students are expected to independently self-monitor, organize, be motivated and responsible for their own learning, and able to accommodate new personal responsibilities, e.g., driving, dating, etc.

8)Decrease of parent involvement.

9)Student skill and performance discrepancies are greater

Here’s the bottom line:

This process in secondary schools can take 5-8 years, rather than the 3-5 years in elementary schools. It is logical that secondary schools will need more time for successful school-wide implementation across all three tiers!

What does research tell us that’s needed for successful systems

change particularly at the secondary level?

1)Active involvement of students

2)Active and visible involvement, commitment, and leadership by administrators. Important for elementary, but paramount at the secondary level.

3)Start with small scale, initial implementation

4)Integrate “new” initiatives into already existing programs and initiatives.

5)Re-organize into smaller learning communities*

*For example, research suggests student group size should be no greater than 600-700 for maximum teaching effectiveness and maintenance of reasonable educational outcomes.

6) High school staff must understand that:

 student knowledge of and capacity to perform appropriate social/behavior skills

should not be assumed,

natural consequences (e.g., not graduating, not getting senior privileges) will not be

sufficient for behavior change for all students,

 not all students are self-motivated by academic and social success.

7) Adjust the master schedule to accommodate three tiers of service delivery.

How do we know that RtI at the Secondary Level works?

Research and experience!

When Should We Start? A Timeline

When you have your DATA:

February: Master schedule adjusted

March: AP and MS admin/staff put together initial list of “at-risk” students and their data

April: Principal, AP, and School Psych review student needs and develop the Tier 2 course concept: what would need to be included to meet the needs of the students and building level needs

June: Hire new staff (if needed)

August: Meet with RtI Eng teachers, discuss class concept, data and progress monitoring.

Fall/Spring: RtI teachers receive on-going professional development

Who Should Do What?

Administrators

•Have a plan:

•How to fit into the master schedule

•Who is your team?

•What training is needed?

•How and when will that be provided?

•Value and use data to drive decision-making

•Instructional Leaders: working knowledge of instruction in basic skill areas and positive behavior support/classroom management

•Prioritize resource allocation: Open dialogue, creativity

•Promote building-wide with all staff and not just let special education drive the RtI bus.

•Be willing to live and breathe this!

School Psychologists

Program analyst, innovative designer,

field evaluator, & diffusion researcher

(Price 1983 & 1986 in Kratochwill et al. 2007):

•Advanced knowledge of problem-solving model, academic and social/behavior interventions, and using data for decision-making.

•On-going support and coaching for regular ed. staff on problem-solving team, interventions, teaching RtI classes, etc. to foster staff buy-in.

•Ability to see the “big picture” of school structure and assist with problem solving the systematic issues.

•Committed follow up with all aspects of problem solving, especially data collection and integrity checks.

Choose teachers for Tier 2 & 3 who:

•Work well with struggling students

•Believe that ALL students can and deserve to learn

•Have good organizational skills

•Demonstrate good classroom management skills

•Are open to new content and instructional methodology

•Change instruction based on student performance data

•Are willing to accept coaching

•Do not stigmatize the intervention by promoting a climate of “those teachers” who teach “those kids.”

Taken from Allain (2008), p. 67

Assessment for Secondary Students

Tier 1: Screeners

General Outcome Measures – Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs)

CBM Reading (ORF): Words read correct in one minute

CBM Written Expression (CWS): Correct word sequences given a story starter, 30 seconds to think, and 3 minutes to write.

CBM Math Applications: 20-22 mixed math computation and applied problems in 10 minutes

CBM Math Facts: Problems correct in one minute

CBM MAZE: Choices correct in 3 minutes.

NWEA Measures of Acadmic Progress (MAP):Computer-adaptive achievement test that assesses math, reading, and language usage using Rasch Unit (RIT) scores.

RIT scores: Interval scale ranging from 150 to around 260 in reading, and 300 in math. Third grade students typically start at a RIT score of 170-190 and progress to the 230-260 range by high school.

Tier 2 & 3: Formative Progress Monitoring

We use GOMs! (see above)

Other helpful resources for assessment:

RTI Action Network:

National Center on Response to Intervention:

Intervention Central–

National High School Center:

Interventions that have worked at CLHS (when well-matched to student need)

•Skills for School Success (Advanced) (Archer & Gleason)

•Six Minute Solution (Adams & Brown)

•Tools for Success (SRA)

•Reading Fluency Interventions: Repeated Reading, Duet Reading, Echo Reading, Partner Reading, etc.

•Expressive Writing 2 (SRA)

•Kansas Writing Strategies

•Journeys (Voyager)

•Repeated Reading with Question Generation

•Paragraph Shrinking

•CLHS “Check & Connect”

•Link Crew

•Spelling Mastery

•Spelling Through Morphographs

Resources/References

Adams, G., & Brown, S. (2003). The Six-Minute Solution: A Reading Fluency Program.

Colorado: Sopris West.

Allain, J.K. (2008). The Logistics of Literacy Intervention. Colorado: Sopris West

Alliance For Excellence in Education. (2004). Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research

In Middle and High School Literacy.

Check & Connect. Retrieved from the What Works Clearinghouse:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/check_conn/index.asp

Crone, D.A., Horner, R.H., Hawken, L.S. (2004). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools:

The Behavior Education Program. New York: Guildford

Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-Based Measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional

Children, 52, 219-232.

Diamond, L. (2004). Implementing and Sustaining a Middle and High School Reading

Intervention Program. The Consortium on Reading Excellence, Inc.

Doll, B., Zucker, S., & Brehm, K. (2004). Resilient Classrooms Creating Healthy Environments

for Learning. New York: Guildford Press

Edmonson-Bohanon, H., Brigid Flannery, K., Eber, L., & Sugai, G. (2005). Positive Behavior

Support in High Schools: Monograph from the 2004 Illinois High School Forum of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Retrieved on August 28, 2007 from

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J. (2008).

Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice

Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation

and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

Lenz, B.K. & Deshler, D.D. (2003) Teaching Content to All: Evidence-Based Inclusive Practices

in Middle and Secondary Schools. Allyn & Bacon.

Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2005). Feasibility and Consequences of Response to

Intervention: Examination of the Issues and Scientific Evidence as a Model for the Identification of Individuals with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525-532.

Morrone, A.S. (2000). Promoting Achievement Motivation in Minke, K.M. & Bear, G.C. (Eds).

Preventing School Problems-Promoting School Success. Maryland: NASP.

National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering

high school students’ motivation to learn. Committee on Increasing High School

Students’ Engagement and Motivation To Learn. Board on Children, Youth, and Families Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Rathvon, N. (1996). The Unmotivated Child. New York: Fireside

Shinn, M.R. (1998). Advanced applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York:

Guilford.

Shinn, M.R, Phelps, M., & March, R. (2007). Implementing Response to Intervention (RtI) in a

Problem-Solving Model at the Secondary Level. NASP Convention Workshop.

Sprick, R.S. (2006). Discipline in the Secondary Classroom: A Positive Approach to Behavior

Management. (2nd Ed.).California: Jossey-Bass Teacher.

Windram, H., Scierka, B, & Silberglit, B. (2007). Response to Intervention at the

Secondary Level: A Description of Two Districts’ Models of Implementation, Communiqué, 35, 43-45.

Created by Holly Windram (2008) for the St. Croix River Education District (SCRED).