Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support Within Career and ...
Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support
Within Career and Tech Ed Centers (CTCs)
RTII Implementer’s Forum
June 26, 2013
Presenters: Dawn Kocher-Taylor, Administrative Director, Lenape Technical School Carla Thimons, Special Programs Coordinator, Lenape Technical School Matt Mann, Asst. Executive Director, Lancaster Co. CTC Michelle Moretz, Asst. Principal, Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC Moderator: Laura C. Moran, Educational Consultant, PaTTAN Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
PaTTAN’s Mission
The mission of the Pennsylvania
Training and Technical Assistance
Network (PaTTAN) is to support the
efforts and initiatives of the Bureau of
Special Education, and to build
capacity of local educational agencies
to serve students who receive special
education services.
2
PDE’s Commitment to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Our goal for each child is to ensure
Individualized Education Program
(IEP) teams begin with the general
education setting with the use of
Supplementary Aids and Services
before considering a
more restrictive environment.
3
Today’s Purpose
A panel discussion featuring two Career Technical Educational Centers (CTCs) sharing the benefits, challenges, and lessons learned in implementing RtII.
4
Introductions
Introducing our presenters for today’s panel discusssion: • Dawn Kocher-Taylor, Administrative Director, Lenape Technical School • Carla Thimons, Special Programs Coordinator, Lenape Technical School • Matt Mann, Asst. Executive Director, Lancaster Co. CTC Michelle Moretz, Asst. Principal, Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC 5
Survey Audience
How many Career and Technical Educational Centers are in PA?
• • • •
500
29
86
97
6
Career Technical Education (CTE) Models in Pennsylvania
A unique challenge of implementing RtII is the variety of CTC models in Pennsylvania Part time CTC (Shared Time) • Students attend their regular high school for half a day for their academic classes • Students attend the CTC half a day for their technical program Comprehensive High School (Full Time) • A technical school that students attend all day • Academic classes and technical programs are all in the same building/campus School districts with approved CTE programs • High schools that offer approved CTE programs on the high school campus Programs can range from grades 9-12, 10-12, 11-12 or 12 only. 7
Sharing Information from Two Implementation Sites
• Site #1:
Lenape Technical School
Dawn Kocher-Taylor, Administrative Director, Lenape Technical School Carla Thimons, Special Programs Coordinator, Lenape 8 Technical School
About Lenape…
• Full Time Comprehensive High School for Juniors and Seniors • Part Time for Sophomores • Enrollment is approximately 600 students • Approximately 28% of the students have IEPs • 16 Technical Programs • Full academic course load • Student academic levels- runs the gamut! • Sending Districts: Apollo-Ridge, Armstrong, Freeport and Leechburg (Consists of 6 high schools) 9 • Ford City, PA- 40 miles north of Pittsburgh
Sharing Information from Two Implementation Sites
Site #2: Willow Street Campus, Lancaster County Career Technical Center
Matt Mann, Asst. Executive Director, Lancaster Co. CTC Michelle Moretz, Asst. Principal, Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC 10
About Lancaster CTC…
• Lancaster County is primarily a rural area. • Currently the LCCTC has three campuses throughout Lancaster County. • LCCTC teaches 52 trade areas. • Primarily a senior only program. • Total enrollment in all areas is 1500 students. • LCCTC serves 16 public sending districts and 5 private schools. 11
The RtII Secondary Journey
• PA developed secondary RtII model in 2009 • CTC representation in PA statewide workgroup • CTC pilot site work began 2010 – Lenape Technical School – Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC • Current work and updates on the development of a training module and documents specific to CTC settings 12
Critical Elements of RtII – Secondary Level
1. High quality classroom instruction/standardsaligned core curriculum 2. Relational support 3. Scientifically/evidence-based interventions, instructional methodologies and strategies 4. Tiered instructional interventions 5. Data based decision making 6. Professional development 13
Secondary RtII: Key Components
Comprehensive CTC (What it Looks Like….)
Crosswalk
Technical CTC (part-timeor senior only) (What it Looks Like….)
1. High quality classroom instruction/standards-aligned core curriculum
1. 2.
Academics,Tier 1 Career Labs
1. Career Labs
2. Relational support
1. 2.
Behavior, school and workplace Work performance/work ethics
1. 2.
Behavior, school and workplace Work performance/work ethics
3. Scientifically/evidence-based interventions, instructional methodologies and strategies
1. 2.
Academic, T. 1 Career, T. 1
1.
Career, T. 1
4. Tiered instructional interventions
1. Focus on academic proficiency (scheduled time)
1. 2.
High School responsibility Applied academic focus in Career Lab
5. Data based decision making
1. 2. 3. 4.
1.
Applied academics in Lab – formative & summative; performance & written Universal screening – academic proficiency
Universal screening data Career competencies Academic proficiency Applied Academics In Lab
2.
6. Professional development 14
School-Wide Systems for Student Success:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions
Behavioral Systems 1-5%
•Individual students •Assessment-based •High intensity
Tier 2/Secondary Intervention 5-15% •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response •Small group interventions • Some individualizing
Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90% •All students •Preventive, proactive Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm
1-5%
Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions •Individual students •Assessment-based •Intense, durable procedures
5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response •Small group interventions •Some individualizing
80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions •All settings, all students •Preventive, proactive
15
Pennsylvania’s Secondary RtII Framework Examples of Relevant Data Current/Projected Academic Performance Data: *PVAAS Projections *Performance: PA Keystone exams *ACCESS for ELLs Data *Performance: Classroom Diagnostic Tools *4Sight *Common Summative Assessments *STAR *Formal instruments or informal observations used to inform instruction and enhance student learning outcomes. *Individually and/or group administered diagnostic measures
Existing Data (Use to establish career and college risk and readiness) *PSSA * End of Year (EOY) Failing Grades in core subjects as early as 4th grade *Failing Grades in beginning and end of 9th grade fall semester courses *Earning Fewer than 2 credits; lack of promotion to 10th grade * 10 days in first month of 9th grade) *Mobility between 8th and 10th grade *Retention in elementary or middle grades *Intervention history *Poor final grades in behavior/disengagement *Abuse/neglect
Progress-Monitoring Tools: Maze passages, written expression prompts, vocabulary matching, ORF, Test of Contextual Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOCSWRF); Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE); CORE Phonics Survey. CORE Phoneme Segmentation Test
Tier 3: Supplemental Small Group Instruction/Interventio n Period for a FEW Students (510%) Daily for an extended period of time Instructional Focus: Basic Skill Deficiencies Tier 2: Supplemental Instruction/ Intervention Period for SOME Students (15-20%) 3-5 times per week or cycle Lower class size Instructional Focus: Extended core instruction in subject area content and/or targeted instruction/intervention Tier I: High Quality Standards-Aligned Core Instruction for ALL students (100%) English and Math Courses aligned to PA/Common Core standards and Keystones ESL Core Instruction aligning ELP and Content Standards Content literacy focus within all courses & use of evidenced-based strategies Instructional Focus: Subject Area Content (e.g., 9th grade Algebra I & 9th grade English Composition)
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
Let’s start at the very beginning… What has been your focus and implementation action plan thus far?
17
Tier Structure
for 2012-2013
18
Lenape’s Timeline
2010 – 2011 -- “Discover and Disclosure” • Met with consultants monthly • Analyzed our current system and compared it to the RTII framework • Looked at data we had, and determined what we would need • Looked at triangle, which became “rectangles” • Professional education for school leadership 2011 – 2012 • First year for CCR/TAP period (20 classes throughout the year) • Introduced RTII “basics” to faculty • Met with Superintendents • Focus on data -- Obtained PVAAS data, Got teachers involved (i.e. data analysis, student interviews, Study Island benchmarks, Classroom Diagnostic Tool) • Degree of Readiness / Student Data Profiles & One-on-one portfolio interviews • Hosted a meeting for sending districts’ principals, guidance counselors and special education supervisors (included RTII on the agenda) 2012-2013 19 • Incorporated an intervention period CCR/TAP into daily schedule • Progress monitoring of IEP goals every Friday
Show me the Data and Getting the Data
Retrieving data from the sending district, collecting data, and analyzing the data can be difficult. Describe your process for accessing data and what data did you use to make decisions?
20
Lancaster Student Profile
21
Lenape Student Data Sheet – Tier 1 Reading
22
Lenape Student Data Sheet – Tier 1 Math
23
Lenape Student Data Sheet – Tier II & III
24
Scheduling – Friend or Foe?
What are some tips and suggestions in devising a schedule for interventions or additional supports?
25
Lenape’s Schedule 2012-2013
26
What’s Changed?
What’s changed as a result of implementing the RTII framework in your CTC?
27
LCCTC: What’s Changed or Is Changing
• Pro-actively identify students – Move from “old” IST model to RtII – Preventive and Proactive, not Reactive • Tracking form to monitor student progress • Gathering information from sending schools through systematic process • Behavior/attendance/discipline focus with tiered levels of intervention • Defining specific instruction and interventions – Academic, attendance, behavior, skills • Data on attendance and referrals show improvement 28
Lenape’s RTII Implementation Efforts
• Developed an individual student profile for tracking historical data and ongoing assessment data • Provided training for all teachers on differentiated instruction
• Behavior, attendance, discipline focus with in-service training
• Provided training for PVAAS to key staff • Developed a tiered level system of intervention supports (assessment decisions) • Enhanced process for accessing historical data from sending schools • Established schoolwide discipline model classroom plan • Established multi-year RtII planning timeline • Created time in master schedule for interventions (College 29 and Career Readiness – CCR)
Advice to others…
What have you learned from this process or what advice would you give to other sites interested in implementing RTII?
30
What We’ve Learned from the Experience --
Lenape
• Assessment is key • Working with sending schools is critical to gain historical assessment data • Celebrate what is working • Do not rush – implementation takes careful planning and TIME • Differentiated instruction is key for both academic and lab teachers
31
What We’ve Learned (and Already Knew) --
Lancaster
– Tier 1 must be the emphasis before Tier 2 and
Tier 3 interventions
• Focus based on student population incoming needs • High level of rigor – academics and technical skills must be addressed at Tier 1 – Data needed from sending schools is critical – Formal document development necessary in
order to build capacity across 3 Lancaster Co.
CTCs
• Sustainability at site(s) 32
Q & A
Questions from the Audience?
33
Future Plans
Where do you go from here and what are your future plans?
34
LCCTC 2012-2013 Plans
• Continue to expand the process at all three campuses • Refine the implementation of data collection to drive the interventions (Benchmarks/Triggers)
– Academic
– Attendance – Discipline
• Collect data from sending districts – Response to Intervention and Instruction Tracking Sheet
– Continue to increase communication with sending schools 35
Lenape: Future Plans
• Stay the course with RTII Implementation • Continue initiatives already in place • Continue to build understanding of the need for sharing data and student information between sending school and CTC • Assess incoming juniors with short reading assessments and begin to look at specific and targeted interventions • Align curriculum with Keystone Assessment Anchors and Eligible Content 36
Contact Information
www.pattan.net
Lenape Contacts:
Dawn Kocher-Taylor
[email protected]
Carla Thimons
[email protected] Lancaster Contacts: Matt Mann [email protected]
Michelle Moretz [email protected] PaTTAN Harrisburg Contact: Laura Moran
[email protected]
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett, Governor
Pennsylvania Department of Education William E. Harner, Ph.D., Acting Secretary Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed.D.
Executive Deputy Secretary
John J. Tommasini, Director Bureau of Special Education
Within Career and Tech Ed Centers (CTCs)
RTII Implementer’s Forum
June 26, 2013
Presenters: Dawn Kocher-Taylor, Administrative Director, Lenape Technical School Carla Thimons, Special Programs Coordinator, Lenape Technical School Matt Mann, Asst. Executive Director, Lancaster Co. CTC Michelle Moretz, Asst. Principal, Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC Moderator: Laura C. Moran, Educational Consultant, PaTTAN Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
PaTTAN’s Mission
The mission of the Pennsylvania
Training and Technical Assistance
Network (PaTTAN) is to support the
efforts and initiatives of the Bureau of
Special Education, and to build
capacity of local educational agencies
to serve students who receive special
education services.
2
PDE’s Commitment to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Our goal for each child is to ensure
Individualized Education Program
(IEP) teams begin with the general
education setting with the use of
Supplementary Aids and Services
before considering a
more restrictive environment.
3
Today’s Purpose
A panel discussion featuring two Career Technical Educational Centers (CTCs) sharing the benefits, challenges, and lessons learned in implementing RtII.
4
Introductions
Introducing our presenters for today’s panel discusssion: • Dawn Kocher-Taylor, Administrative Director, Lenape Technical School • Carla Thimons, Special Programs Coordinator, Lenape Technical School • Matt Mann, Asst. Executive Director, Lancaster Co. CTC Michelle Moretz, Asst. Principal, Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC 5
Survey Audience
How many Career and Technical Educational Centers are in PA?
• • • •
500
29
86
97
6
Career Technical Education (CTE) Models in Pennsylvania
A unique challenge of implementing RtII is the variety of CTC models in Pennsylvania Part time CTC (Shared Time) • Students attend their regular high school for half a day for their academic classes • Students attend the CTC half a day for their technical program Comprehensive High School (Full Time) • A technical school that students attend all day • Academic classes and technical programs are all in the same building/campus School districts with approved CTE programs • High schools that offer approved CTE programs on the high school campus Programs can range from grades 9-12, 10-12, 11-12 or 12 only. 7
Sharing Information from Two Implementation Sites
• Site #1:
Lenape Technical School
Dawn Kocher-Taylor, Administrative Director, Lenape Technical School Carla Thimons, Special Programs Coordinator, Lenape 8 Technical School
About Lenape…
• Full Time Comprehensive High School for Juniors and Seniors • Part Time for Sophomores • Enrollment is approximately 600 students • Approximately 28% of the students have IEPs • 16 Technical Programs • Full academic course load • Student academic levels- runs the gamut! • Sending Districts: Apollo-Ridge, Armstrong, Freeport and Leechburg (Consists of 6 high schools) 9 • Ford City, PA- 40 miles north of Pittsburgh
Sharing Information from Two Implementation Sites
Site #2: Willow Street Campus, Lancaster County Career Technical Center
Matt Mann, Asst. Executive Director, Lancaster Co. CTC Michelle Moretz, Asst. Principal, Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC 10
About Lancaster CTC…
• Lancaster County is primarily a rural area. • Currently the LCCTC has three campuses throughout Lancaster County. • LCCTC teaches 52 trade areas. • Primarily a senior only program. • Total enrollment in all areas is 1500 students. • LCCTC serves 16 public sending districts and 5 private schools. 11
The RtII Secondary Journey
• PA developed secondary RtII model in 2009 • CTC representation in PA statewide workgroup • CTC pilot site work began 2010 – Lenape Technical School – Willow St. Campus, Lancaster Co. CTC • Current work and updates on the development of a training module and documents specific to CTC settings 12
Critical Elements of RtII – Secondary Level
1. High quality classroom instruction/standardsaligned core curriculum 2. Relational support 3. Scientifically/evidence-based interventions, instructional methodologies and strategies 4. Tiered instructional interventions 5. Data based decision making 6. Professional development 13
Secondary RtII: Key Components
Comprehensive CTC (What it Looks Like….)
Crosswalk
Technical CTC (part-timeor senior only) (What it Looks Like….)
1. High quality classroom instruction/standards-aligned core curriculum
1. 2.
Academics,Tier 1 Career Labs
1. Career Labs
2. Relational support
1. 2.
Behavior, school and workplace Work performance/work ethics
1. 2.
Behavior, school and workplace Work performance/work ethics
3. Scientifically/evidence-based interventions, instructional methodologies and strategies
1. 2.
Academic, T. 1 Career, T. 1
1.
Career, T. 1
4. Tiered instructional interventions
1. Focus on academic proficiency (scheduled time)
1. 2.
High School responsibility Applied academic focus in Career Lab
5. Data based decision making
1. 2. 3. 4.
1.
Applied academics in Lab – formative & summative; performance & written Universal screening – academic proficiency
Universal screening data Career competencies Academic proficiency Applied Academics In Lab
2.
6. Professional development 14
School-Wide Systems for Student Success:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions
Behavioral Systems 1-5%
•Individual students •Assessment-based •High intensity
Tier 2/Secondary Intervention 5-15% •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response •Small group interventions • Some individualizing
Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90% •All students •Preventive, proactive Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm
1-5%
Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions •Individual students •Assessment-based •Intense, durable procedures
5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response •Small group interventions •Some individualizing
80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions •All settings, all students •Preventive, proactive
15
Pennsylvania’s Secondary RtII Framework Examples of Relevant Data Current/Projected Academic Performance Data: *PVAAS Projections *Performance: PA Keystone exams *ACCESS for ELLs Data *Performance: Classroom Diagnostic Tools *4Sight *Common Summative Assessments *STAR *Formal instruments or informal observations used to inform instruction and enhance student learning outcomes. *Individually and/or group administered diagnostic measures
Existing Data (Use to establish career and college risk and readiness) *PSSA * End of Year (EOY) Failing Grades in core subjects as early as 4th grade *Failing Grades in beginning and end of 9th grade fall semester courses *Earning Fewer than 2 credits; lack of promotion to 10th grade * 10 days in first month of 9th grade) *Mobility between 8th and 10th grade *Retention in elementary or middle grades *Intervention history *Poor final grades in behavior/disengagement *Abuse/neglect
Progress-Monitoring Tools: Maze passages, written expression prompts, vocabulary matching, ORF, Test of Contextual Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOCSWRF); Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE); CORE Phonics Survey. CORE Phoneme Segmentation Test
Tier 3: Supplemental Small Group Instruction/Interventio n Period for a FEW Students (510%) Daily for an extended period of time Instructional Focus: Basic Skill Deficiencies Tier 2: Supplemental Instruction/ Intervention Period for SOME Students (15-20%) 3-5 times per week or cycle Lower class size Instructional Focus: Extended core instruction in subject area content and/or targeted instruction/intervention Tier I: High Quality Standards-Aligned Core Instruction for ALL students (100%) English and Math Courses aligned to PA/Common Core standards and Keystones ESL Core Instruction aligning ELP and Content Standards Content literacy focus within all courses & use of evidenced-based strategies Instructional Focus: Subject Area Content (e.g., 9th grade Algebra I & 9th grade English Composition)
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
Let’s start at the very beginning… What has been your focus and implementation action plan thus far?
17
Tier Structure
for 2012-2013
18
Lenape’s Timeline
2010 – 2011 -- “Discover and Disclosure” • Met with consultants monthly • Analyzed our current system and compared it to the RTII framework • Looked at data we had, and determined what we would need • Looked at triangle, which became “rectangles” • Professional education for school leadership 2011 – 2012 • First year for CCR/TAP period (20 classes throughout the year) • Introduced RTII “basics” to faculty • Met with Superintendents • Focus on data -- Obtained PVAAS data, Got teachers involved (i.e. data analysis, student interviews, Study Island benchmarks, Classroom Diagnostic Tool) • Degree of Readiness / Student Data Profiles & One-on-one portfolio interviews • Hosted a meeting for sending districts’ principals, guidance counselors and special education supervisors (included RTII on the agenda) 2012-2013 19 • Incorporated an intervention period CCR/TAP into daily schedule • Progress monitoring of IEP goals every Friday
Show me the Data and Getting the Data
Retrieving data from the sending district, collecting data, and analyzing the data can be difficult. Describe your process for accessing data and what data did you use to make decisions?
20
Lancaster Student Profile
21
Lenape Student Data Sheet – Tier 1 Reading
22
Lenape Student Data Sheet – Tier 1 Math
23
Lenape Student Data Sheet – Tier II & III
24
Scheduling – Friend or Foe?
What are some tips and suggestions in devising a schedule for interventions or additional supports?
25
Lenape’s Schedule 2012-2013
26
What’s Changed?
What’s changed as a result of implementing the RTII framework in your CTC?
27
LCCTC: What’s Changed or Is Changing
• Pro-actively identify students – Move from “old” IST model to RtII – Preventive and Proactive, not Reactive • Tracking form to monitor student progress • Gathering information from sending schools through systematic process • Behavior/attendance/discipline focus with tiered levels of intervention • Defining specific instruction and interventions – Academic, attendance, behavior, skills • Data on attendance and referrals show improvement 28
Lenape’s RTII Implementation Efforts
• Developed an individual student profile for tracking historical data and ongoing assessment data • Provided training for all teachers on differentiated instruction
• Behavior, attendance, discipline focus with in-service training
• Provided training for PVAAS to key staff • Developed a tiered level system of intervention supports (assessment decisions) • Enhanced process for accessing historical data from sending schools • Established schoolwide discipline model classroom plan • Established multi-year RtII planning timeline • Created time in master schedule for interventions (College 29 and Career Readiness – CCR)
Advice to others…
What have you learned from this process or what advice would you give to other sites interested in implementing RTII?
30
What We’ve Learned from the Experience --
Lenape
• Assessment is key • Working with sending schools is critical to gain historical assessment data • Celebrate what is working • Do not rush – implementation takes careful planning and TIME • Differentiated instruction is key for both academic and lab teachers
31
What We’ve Learned (and Already Knew) --
Lancaster
– Tier 1 must be the emphasis before Tier 2 and
Tier 3 interventions
• Focus based on student population incoming needs • High level of rigor – academics and technical skills must be addressed at Tier 1 – Data needed from sending schools is critical – Formal document development necessary in
order to build capacity across 3 Lancaster Co.
CTCs
• Sustainability at site(s) 32
Q & A
Questions from the Audience?
33
Future Plans
Where do you go from here and what are your future plans?
34
LCCTC 2012-2013 Plans
• Continue to expand the process at all three campuses • Refine the implementation of data collection to drive the interventions (Benchmarks/Triggers)
– Academic
– Attendance – Discipline
• Collect data from sending districts – Response to Intervention and Instruction Tracking Sheet
– Continue to increase communication with sending schools 35
Lenape: Future Plans
• Stay the course with RTII Implementation • Continue initiatives already in place • Continue to build understanding of the need for sharing data and student information between sending school and CTC • Assess incoming juniors with short reading assessments and begin to look at specific and targeted interventions • Align curriculum with Keystone Assessment Anchors and Eligible Content 36
Contact Information
www.pattan.net
Lenape Contacts:
Dawn Kocher-Taylor
[email protected]
Carla Thimons
[email protected] Lancaster Contacts: Matt Mann [email protected]
Michelle Moretz [email protected] PaTTAN Harrisburg Contact: Laura Moran
[email protected]
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett, Governor
Pennsylvania Department of Education William E. Harner, Ph.D., Acting Secretary Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed.D.
Executive Deputy Secretary
John J. Tommasini, Director Bureau of Special Education
