Aligning RtI and PBIS: Potholes and Potential for an Integrated MTSS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aligning RtI and PBIS: Potholes and Potential for an Integrated MTSS

Brian Gaunt, Ph.D. Inter-Project Coordinator Florida Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (FLPBIS) Florida Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention (FL PS/RtI)

1

Welcome!

• Ongoing effort in Florida
• Challenges & Benefits to merging RtI and

PBIS

• Why are you bringing these two initiatives

together? (Benefits)

• What stands in your way? (Obstacles)

2

• Top-down vs. Bottom-up views of implementing MTSS
• What some schools are doing to integrate the two and the challenges they have to overcome.

FLORIDA BACKGROUND

AND CONTEXT

3

Florida MTSS Mission

+ =

___________________________________________ _

“The collaborative vision of the Florida Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention (FL PS/RtI) and the Florida Positive Behavior Support/Response to Intervention for Behavior (FLPBS/RtI:B) Projects is to:

• Enhance the capacity of all Florida school districts to successfully

implement and sustain a multi-tiered system of student supports with fidelity in every school;

• Accelerate and maximize student academic and social-emotional
• utcomes through the application of collaborative data-based problem

solving utilized by effective leadership at all levels of the educational system;

• Inform the development, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of an

integrated, aligned, and sustainable system of service delivery that prepares all students for post-secondary education and/or successful employment within our global society.”

4

MTSS as a Framework

• Without a Framework
• With a Framework

5

Model of Integrated RtI & PBIS: MTSS Components

What we do to help students improve their educational

• utcomes.

(Student supports and decision-making) What we do to implement & sustain a tiered service delivery model & problem solving process (Implementation supports and decision- making)

Communication & Collaboration Data Evaluation Building Capacity & Infrastructure Leadership Data-based Problem- Solving Process Continuum of Instruction & Intervention (Tiers)

6

Brief Florida History in Ed (post-IDEIA 2004 - RtI)

• 2004-2008: Rt

RtI in introduced to state (formally)

• 2008: Financial crisis in U.S.
• 2009: ARRA - Race to the Top Funding (Tchr eval and SIG)
• 2009: Differentiated Accountability
• 2009: Florida Assessment of Instruction in Reading
• 2010: FL

FLPB PBIS S and and FL PS/Rt RtI St Start Fo Formal Collaboration

• 2010: Revisions to state test - FCAT 2.0
• 2011: First…and only statewide MTSS conference
• 2011: New Governor of Florida
• 2011 to 2013: 4 changes to Education Commissioner
• 2011: New Bureau Chief for special ed
• 2011-2013: Implementation of new teacher appraisal systems
• 2012 to present: Common core implementation
• 2014: FSA - new state test aligned to Florida Standards.

7

Like hitting a wall at top speed…been recovering ever since…

Trends in MTSS Perspectives

• MTSS as (Org Capacity, RtI+PBIS, School Reform)
• “Creative funding”, State Visibility, Common Vision/Lang.
• Culture & Knowledge for Systems Change/Implementation
• Building Capacity for EBPs
• District & School Improvement Context;
• Comprehensive Data Systems and Problem Solving
• Tiered Service Model Use (student to district)
• PD Pedagogy - give ‘em fish or teach ’em to fish
• Systems Coaching (Teaming) & Performance Feedback
• “Add-On” vs. Initiative Alignment and Integration
• Merging Classroom Practices for “engagement”

8

Facilitators and Barriers to Integrating RtI and PBIS

Fa Faci cilitators rs

• Strong state & district visibility/priority
• Common language & understanding for MTSS
• Proactive/visionary leadership
• Shared funding & Grant mgmt
• Shared mission/vision
• Shared implementation model
• Shared evaluation model
• Collaborative focus on building system capacity
• School Improvement using MTSS
• Priority on Tier 1
• ESE as ”specially designed instruction”
• Integrated data systems
• Strong coaching network/capacity
• Common problem solving model
• Shared knowledge of organizational change

Ba Barriers

• Limited or no state/district visibility or priority
• Variability in understanding MTSS/PBIS/RtI
• Reactive leadership
• Separate funding streams; different grant mgmt
• Vague or misaligned vision/mission
• Different implementation models
• Different evaluation methods/tools
• Siloed technical assistance delivery; no capacity build
• Competing initiatives
• No priority on Tier 1
• ESE as a “place” or “category”; MTSS as a “process”
• Rigid vs. Fluid district entry/Tech Assist
• No/limited coaching capacity
• Different data-based decision-making models
• Turf and Politics
• Leadership turnover (State/District/Bldg)
• Changes to assessment systems in schools

9

New Questions

Are we trying to integrate RtI and PBIS for the sake of integrating? What would “integration” look like if we approached it from an outcome driven perspective? Do we need to define what “integration” is?

10

DEFINING INTEGRATION

11

One Size “way of work”? What if…

• Every district is organized differently
• Different priorities and readiness
• District size and complexity influences entry and capacity
• Fluctuations in political climate
• Consider functional degrees of integration to match local

contextual capacity

12

Defining Integration

• Many definitions focus on:

– Coordination of activities or practices, – Coordination of information, – “Material flow” – Alignment of policy – Merging of resources – Interconnectedness of subsystem elements

• Conceptual roots of “integration” in Business:

– Fayol (1949) – Notions of cooperation and coordination. – Lawrence & Lorsch (1969) “…process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in the accomplishment of the organization’s task…”p. 34.

13

Specialization vs. Merger “While homogenization & fusing of components of a system together to the point that they are no longer distinctive can be viewed as reflecting the ultimate in integration, this may not be optimal in an

• rganization setting because such an extreme

integration eliminates the much needed differentiated and complimentary skills and expertise that comes with specialization.”

Model of “Organizational Integration”

Barki & Pinsonneault, 2005, pg. 166

14

“Integration” as Degrees of Interdependence

Si Silos

• Independent;
• Different goals
• r mission
• Distinctive &

specialized

• Unresponsive
• Different

resources, procedures & ways of work. Pa Para ralle llel

• Independent;
• Shared goals or

mission

• Distinctive &

Specialized

• Mostly

unresponsive

• Different

resources, procedures,& ways of work Ali Aligned

• Some

Dependence

• Shared goals &

mission

• Distinctive &

specialized

• Greater

responsiveness

• Some shared

resources, procedures & ways of work Br Braided

• More Dependent
• Shared goals &

mission

• Distinctive &

specialized

• Sufficiently

responsive

• Complementary
• Greater sharing of

resources, procedures & ways

• f work

Mer Merge

• Highly Dependent
• Shared goals &

mission

• Little to no

distinctiveness or specialization

• Highly responsive and

dependent to each

• ther
• All resources,

procedures & ways of work are common

15

Calibrating Collaboration

• What can we learn from innovative schools

about integrating RtI and PBIS practices?

• Can that information be used to guide district

and regional “integration” efforts? (need-based PD and TA?)

• What implications exist for state or project level

collaboration?

16

LEARNING ABOUT SCHOOL EFFORTS

TO INTEGRATE ACADEMICS AND

BEHAVIOR

17

Identifying “exemplary practices”

• NOT A RESEARCH STUDY!; part of our TA support
• Staff nominations of exemplary RtI and PBIS districts
• Districts organized by “size” for comparison and sampling
• Seeking all school types and regions; 1st cohort of 8 districts
• 3 phases:

1. School selection and identification of MTSS practices

• 2. School observations and staff interviews

3. Development of state “model” site for integrated MTSS

18

Participating*Districts*to*Date

Co Comple pleted Di District ct and Sch chool l Interviews

• 6 of 8 districts
• Total of 11 schools
• Districts

– St. Lucie School District – Santa Rosa School District – Levy School District – Baker School District – Broward School District

• District size range from:

– 6 to 310 schools – 4,600+ to 260,000+ students

Co Completed ed School Site e Vi Visi sits s - 8 sch chools ls

• 1. St. Lucie Schools - (2 nominations)

– K-8 school and Middle School

• 2. Santa Rosa Schools - (3 nominations)

– Primary School, Middle School, Elem School

• 3. Levy Schools (1 nomination)

– Elementary school

• 4. Baker Schools (2 nominations)

– Elementary school and PK-K Center

19

A*Few*Themes…

• District role/support is critical
• Access to and capacity to improve a comprehensive data management system
• Strong, resolute vision/mission and priority for MTSS.
• Leadership, leadership, leadership…as a “team”
• On-site coaching capacity and distributed leadership or systems coaching
• PBIS as a foundation for RtI/MTSS academics
• Buy-in is not a one-time event and you don’t need 80% to get started
• Focus on teacher supports and professional learning
• You don’t need 1 team to do everything…but,…
• Very important to have a common data-use process (Problem solving approach).
• The goal/purpose of MTSS is NOT special education - but differentiated education
• Include all of your content experts and give them a voice
• Effective teaching practices are useful for both academics and behavior
• Build/Implement from the classroom on out and treat as a marathon, not a sprint

20

Overview: Opportunities for Integrated MTSS

• Classroom Level

– Classroom Management Practices + Universal Design for Learning + Standards-based Lesson Design + PLC Lesson Study

• School level

– Establishing Buy-in for MTSS among staff – School improvement planning – Problem solving teaming practices

• District level

– Building school-level capacity to implement MTSS – Organizational Problem solving and MTSS implementation

21

CLASSROOM-LEVEL “INTEGRATION” OPPORTUNITIES

22

Integrated MTSS: Classroom Instruction/Intervention

Standards- based Instruction UDL + Differentiated Instruction Lesson Study Classroom Climate

St Stan andar ards-Dri Drive ven Instru ruction

• Standards drive all goal setting across

tiers.

• Instruction is flexible to needs of

population - but aligned to standards

• Curriculum choices based on student

needs and aligned to standards

• Include implicit social skills for

engagement

1

Unpacking The Standards

The unpacking process allows teachers and administrators to determine what matters most (i.e. pacing, assessment, critical focus areas)

• Clarity
• Alignment
• Continuity
• Integration
• Baseline

Santa Rosa: Benett Russell Elementary “In Intentional P Planning” Described by teacher focus group when asked about how they consider student behavior needs when planning standards-driven instructional lessons.

Step 1 Select a standard or a set of standards. Step 2 Circle the verbs and action phrases (skills-Do). Record. Step 3 Underline the nouns and noun phrases (knowledge and understanding-K and U). Record. Step 4 Determine pre-requisite skills implied within the

• standard. Record.

Step 5 Determine instructional implications of the

• standard. Record.

Unpacking Steps

Here is where teachers can reflect on the “Engagement” or ”academic behaviors” students need to participate in activities and gain the most from the lessons. Implications for pre- teaching social skills or group process; IEP or Tiered alignment, etc.

Integrated MTSS: Classroom Instruction/Intervention

Standards- based Instruction UDL + Differentiated Instruction Lesson Study Classroom Climate

St Stan andar ards-Dri Drive ven Instru ruction

• Standards drive all goal setting across

tiers.

• Instruction is flexible to needs of

population - but aligned to standards

• Curriculum choices based on student

needs and aligned to standards

• Include implicit social skills for

engagement

1

UD UDL L + + Di

• Diff. Instru

ruction

• Flexible presentation
• Flexible expression
• Differentiated learning supports
• Options for engagement
• Assistive Technology
• “Universal” teaching practices

2

Clas assroom

• om Climat

ate (S (SEL/MH/Be Behavior)

• Classroom Management
• Behavior Management
• Social Skills Instruct.
• Character Ed
• Trauma Informed Care
• Restorative Justice
• Problem Solving

3

Le Lesson Study

• Collaborative data-based planning
• Integrated lessons - academic &

behavior.

• Analysis of student engagement
• Lesson evaluation
• Problem solving
• Instructional effectiveness analysis
• Culturally relevant instruction

4

Integrated Classroom Supports: Building Capacity

St Standards-ba based In Instruct ction UDL DL + Di Differentiated In Instruct ction Le Lesson St Study Cl Clas assro room PB PBIS

Coaching Leadership Effective Teaming Data Systems

Reciprocal Leadership-Coaching

• Leaders as coaches as

leaders.

• Distributed Leadership
• Peer Coaching
• Modeling and

implementing EBPs

• Data-driven culture
• Evaluation of impacts

Teaming & Data “System”

• Common PS language
• Data Storage and Access
• Data-use only as good as

effective teaming.

• System is more than

computers

• Coordinate assessment
• ptions

Leading Team Culture and Ways of Work Coaching for Data Literacy Among Staff

Merging? Academic and Social Skills Instruction

Check out: Co Common Co Core and PBI BIS

• https://www.pbis.org/Common/Cms/files/Forum14_Presentations/E8_PBIS_Gaunt

_Minch_Final.pdf

• Identifying implicit social skill needs in academic lesson plan design.

Check out: FLPBIS Classroom Coachin ing

http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/resources_classroom.cfm

• Analysis of academic variables influencing social behaviors.

Check out: Le Lesson n Study

http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/resources/newsletters/pk12/2016/pk12newsletter2.pdf

• Analysis of instructional effectiveness and student engagement

SCHOOL-LEVEL “INTEGRATION” OPPORTUNITIES

29

School-level MTSS Implementation

Strategies for establishing ”buy-in”

• Leadership setting professional culture - “growth mindset”
• Leaders as coaches - get into the trenches
• Ensure ample staff support and PD options
• Leverage success of PBIS to implement MTSS
• Build on variables directly suited for teacher need
• Provide clear guidance, forms, procedures
• Focus on relationships when talking about data
• Use teacher-friendly language
• Make it relevant to teacher evaluation criteria
• Keep coming back to the data, over and over again; Lead data chats

30

MTSS Alignment in School Improvement

• Florida’s Continuous Improvement Monitoring System (CIMS)

https://www.floridacims.org/downloads

Systems Coaching for RtI and PBIS

• Southport Middle School - St. Lucie

County

• School-based Leadership team

coaching grade level teams & PS teams.

• Peer-Coaching framework
• Coaching for Coaches
• Phases:
• Leadership team;
• School teaming & infrastructures;
• Staff skills & knowledge capacity

SBLT

Core Team PBIS Team

PS Teams (Teachers; Tier 2 Focus) Grade Level “Collaborative Teams” (Tier 1 Focus) Shared Membership School PS Team (Tier 2 & 3 Focus)

• Southport Middle -
• Coaching Teams for Data-based decision-making.
• “whole is greater than sum of parts”
• Need for:
• Transparency and openness to data (Growth Mindset)
• Communication & process for structured problem solving
• Norms, roles, agendas, and procedures
• Team culture that promote collaboration over competitiveness

– Deflective vs. Reflective.

• Staff manuals - specific to grade and content area; simplify “MTSS” for

teachers.

“Reflective v. Deflective” Teams

Aligning PBIS and RtI

• Hobbs Middle School - Santa Rosa County
• PBIS Implementation as Foundation for MTSS buy-in and staff

involvement.

• Gateway High School - Osceola County
• School improvement provides overarching structure for organizing RtI and

PBIS.

• Bennett Russel Elementary - Santa Rosa County
• Implementing RtI from the “inside - out”
• PBIS necessary foundation for making standards-based instruction a priority.

Team Alignment for Problem Solving

Integrated Problem Solving

• Bronson Elementary - Levy County, FL
• Baker Pk-K Center - Baker County, FL
• Westside Elementary - Baker County, FL
• Student-focused Problem Solving
• 4 step process
• Guiding Tools for Instructional Problem

Solving

• http://www.florida-rti.org/gtips/index.html

DISTRICT-LEVEL “INTEGRATION” OPPORTUNITIES

37

Blended District Teaming

• Hendry County, FL
• Small-Rural District
• Two towns - total of 10

schools

• Reduce OSS Rates -

federal & state concern

• Priority on Secondary

Schools

District Leadership Team District OSS Task Force School Equity Training Secondary School ELA and Math Training District MTSS Coordinator PBIS TA & RtI TA

Academic focus includes behavioral engagement in lesson planning Problem Solving to analyze sources of inequity: Reforming District Code of Conduct and Discipline Matrix

District level - Merging/Blending Supports for District Readiness & Building Capacity

• DAPPS - Florida
• http://www.pbis.org/common/cms/files/Forum12/A9_Kincaid_PeshakGeorge.pdf
• Self-Assessment of MTSS - Florida MTSS/PBIS
• http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/sam/sam_ta_manual2016.pdf
• http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/sam/sam.pdf
• District Capacity Assessment (MTSS) - (Michigan)
• https://miblsi.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Evaluation/Capacity/DCA%206.2%20%20Final%20Print%207.30.15%20MI%

20Insert.pdf

• MTSS District Systems Self assessment (Colorado)
• https://www.cde.state.co.us/mtss/dssa

(FL) DAPPS: 5 Phases of District Consultation

• Ph

Phas ase 1: District application, readiness and preparation for planning.

• Ph

Phas ase 2: District analysis of need - detailed process starting with academic and behavior student data.

• Ph

Phas ase 3: District Planning

• Ph

Phas ase 4: District Plan implementation - coordination with outside agency assistance

• Ph

Phas ase 5: Evaluation and Continuous Improvement

Ba Baker Co Count nty - Uses DAPPS Process with co-faciltiation by both RtI and PBIS project representatives. Uses DAPPS to identify gaps in district supports to schools and develop plans to improve those supports. E.g., PBIS Boosters; PS training; Coaching capacity; Updates in Procedures or communications

(FL) DAPPS Phase 2: Analysis of Need

• Work with District “where they are at”.
• Analysis of both behavior and academic data

+ infrastructure.

• Hypotheses for lack of outcomes focused on

district organizational factors.

• Phase ends with District Team consensus

about organizational changes needed to address student outcome concern.

Engage in Org. Problem Solving (SGP&PS) Problem Solve Barriers to Problems with Implementing Plan are Identified Problem Solve Barriers Barriers Removed: Plan Reestablished

Organizational*Problem*Solving

42

Determination of Goals in Relation to Current Conditions Assessment of Relevant Variables to Reaching Goals Development of “Strategic Plan” Evaluation of Plan Impact on Attainment of Goals Plan Implementation Development, implementation, and evaluation of a district “strategic plan”

In*Closing…

• Potential benefits out-way obstacles to integrating RtI/PBIS
• Who said it was “easy”?

– This is a marathon; an evolving organizational change process

• Don’t treat MTSS as a “thing”, but as a framework

– To organize all existing practices and unify them toward student outcome evaluation.

• Don’t get in the way of innovation, promote it…and scale-up what works.

– Also don’t make policy decisions based on a few “bad” schools.

• Prepare for future generations of educators and families;

– Establish comprehensive professional learning systems driven by need/data

• Make systems change relevant for parents, teachers, and students as your

primary stakeholders.

– Get rid of jargon and acronyms; focus on classrooms and differentiated service delivery

43

Please*Follow*Us*on*Social*Media

– http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/ – Email: flpbs@fmhi.usf.edu – Facebook: flpbis – Twitter: @flpbis

44

Brian Gaunt bgaunt@usf.edu