Welcome! • Ongoing effort in Florida • Challenges & Benefits to merging RtI and Aligning RtI and PBIS: Potholes and PBIS Potential for an Integrated MTSS • Why are you bringing these two initiatives together? (Benefits) Brian Gaunt, Ph.D. Inter-Project Coordinator • What stands in your way? (Obstacles) Florida Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (FLPBIS) Florida Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention (FL PS/RtI) • 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. 2 1 + 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; F LORIDA B ACKGROUND • Accelerate and maximize student academic and social-emotional AND C ONTEXT outcomes 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 3 1
Model of Integrated RtI & PBIS: MTSS as a Framework MTSS Components What we do to help students • Without a Framework • With a Framework improve their educational outcomes. Continuum of Instruction Data-based Problem- (Student supports and & Intervention (Tiers) Solving Process decision-making) What we do to implement & sustain a Leadership tiered service delivery Data Evaluation model & problem solving process Building (Implementation Communication & Capacity & supports and decision- Collaboration Infrastructure making) 6 5 Trends in MTSS Perspectives Brief Florida History in Ed (post-IDEIA 2004 - RtI) • 2004-2008: Rt RtI in introduced t to s state ( (formally) • MTSS as (Org Capacity, RtI+PBIS, School Reform) 2008: Financial crisis in U.S. • • “Creative funding”, State Visibility, Common Vision/Lang. • 2009: ARRA - Race to the Top Funding (Tchr eval and SIG) • Culture & Knowledge for Systems Change/Implementation • 2009: Differentiated Accountability • Building Capacity for EBPs 2009: Florida Assessment of Instruction in Reading • • 2010: FL FLPB PBIS an and FL PS/Rt RtI St Start Fo Forma mal Collaboration • District & School Improvement Context; 2010: Revisions to state test - FCAT 2.0 • • Comprehensive Data Systems and Problem Solving Like hitting a • 2011: First…and only statewide MTSS conference • Tiered Service Model Use (student to district) wall at top • 2011: New Governor of Florida • PD Pedagogy - give ‘em fish or teach ’em to fish • 2011 to 2013: 4 changes to Education Commissioner speed…been • 2011: New Bureau Chief for special ed • Systems Coaching (Teaming) & Performance Feedback recovering ever 2011-2013: Implementation of new teacher appraisal systems • since… • “Add-On” vs. Initiative Alignment and Integration • 2012 to present: Common core implementation • Merging Classroom Practices for “engagement” 2014: FSA - new state test aligned to Florida Standards. • 8 7 2
Facilitators and Barriers to New Questions Integrating RtI and PBIS Ba Barriers Fa Facilitators • Strong state & district visibility/priority • Limited or no state/district visibility or priority Are we trying to integrate RtI and PBIS • Common language & understanding for MTSS • Variability in understanding MTSS/PBIS/RtI for the sake of integrating? • Proactive/visionary leadership • Reactive leadership • Shared funding & Grant mgmt • Separate funding streams; different grant mgmt • Shared mission/vision • Vague or misaligned vision/mission • Different implementation models What would “integration” look like if we • Shared implementation model • Shared evaluation model • Different evaluation methods/tools approached it from an outcome driven • Collaborative focus on building system capacity • Siloed technical assistance delivery; no capacity build • School Improvement using MTSS • Competing initiatives perspective? Priority on Tier 1 • No priority on Tier 1 • ESE as ”specially designed instruction” • ESE as a “place” or “category”; MTSS as a “process” • • Integrated data systems • Rigid vs. Fluid district entry/Tech Assist Do we need to define what • Strong coaching network/capacity • No/limited coaching capacity “integration” is? • Common problem solving model • Different data-based decision-making models Shared knowledge of organizational change • Turf and Politics • • Leadership turnover (State/District/Bldg) • Changes to assessment systems in schools 10 9 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 D EFINING I NTEGRATION • Consider functional degrees of integration to match local contextual capacity 12 11 3
Defining Integration Specialization vs. Merger • Many definitions focus on: “While homogenization & fusing of components of a – Coordination of activities or practices, system together to the point that they are no longer – Coordination of information, distinctive can be viewed as reflecting the ultimate in – “Material flow” – Alignment of policy integration, this may not be optimal in an – Merging of resources organization setting because such an extreme – Interconnectedness of subsystem elements integration eliminates the much needed • Conceptual roots of “integration” in Business: differentiated and complimentary skills and expertise – Fayol (1949) – Notions of cooperation and coordination. that comes with specialization.” – Lawrence & Lorsch (1969) “…process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in the accomplishment of the organization’s task…” p. 34. Model of “ Organizational Integration” Barki & Pinsonneault, 2005, pg. 166 14 13 Calibrating Collaboration “Integration” as Degrees of Interdependence • What can we learn from innovative schools Si Silos Al Aligned Br Braided Me Merge about integrating RtI and PBIS practices? Parallel Pa • Independent; • Some • More Dependent • Highly Dependent • Independent; • Different goals Dependence • Shared goals & • Shared goals & • Shared goals or • Can that information be used to guide district or mission • Shared goals & mission mission mission • Distinctive & mission • Distinctive & • Little to no • Distinctive & and regional “integration” efforts? (need-based specialized • Distinctive & specialized distinctiveness or Specialized • Unresponsive specialized • Sufficiently specialization PD and TA?) • Mostly • Different • Greater responsive • Highly responsive and unresponsive resources, responsiveness • Complementary dependent to each • Different procedures & • Some shared • Greater sharing of other resources, ways of work. resources, resources, • All resources, • What implications exist for state or project level procedures,& procedures & procedures & ways procedures & ways of ways of work collaboration? ways of work of work work are common 16 15 4
Recommend
More recommend