Kelly Aman Principal West Millbrook Middle School Raleigh

Kelly Aman, Principal West Millbrook Middle School Raleigh, North Carolina

Our journey with MTSS. . • In 2013, we hired an RTI Coach and began exploring RTI as a mode of continuous improvement. • In 2014, we hired our current MTSS Coach. Our school was selected as a Cohort 1 school as the district began facilitating the work of MTSS. • In 2016 -17 we are in year 3 of implementation, seeing cultural change and academic growth as a result of our journey with MTSS.

In the beginning. . • Leadership is critical • Created a strong MTSS Implementation Team comprised of the principal, an assistant principal, school improvement chairs, psychologist, Intervention Team facilitator • Exploration led by implementation science research • District led professional learning to support our work • Gains and setbacks, settle in for the ‘long haul’ • And then its all about BELIEFS. .

It’s All About Beliefs. . . • What do we believe about all students and learning? • How can we create positive change about our beliefs? • What’s best for our kids?

It’s Not A Race. . • Stay the course. Gentle pressure relentlessly applied. Be consistent. • Celebrate the successes. Learn from the setbacks. • Cultivate a team of MTSS leaders.

Greatest challenges so far. . • Year 1 = Tier 1 (Easy to say not easy to accomplish) • Capacity building of teachers • Reframing – MTSS is not a gateway to special education

SUCCESSES!!! • Faculty is very data driven, disaggregating data throughout the year down to subgroup performance on individual classroom assessments • Data drives professional learning • Systematic team structures • And significant academic gains

So what’s next for West Millbrook? Full integration of MTSS into School Improvement

Quashnet School Mashpee, MA Road Map to MTSS Implementation Mary. Kate O’Brien, Principal

QS Demographics Quashnet School – Grade 3 -6 Enrollment – 518 Students Avg. Class Size – 20 District Enrollment – approx. 1700

WHY MTSS? Our students are not performing where we expect to them to on state assessments. Special Education students are identified at a high rate than the state. Our MCAS/PARCC scores have flat lined. We were a district of three schools- operating independently. Our work is creating one district of three schools. Gr. PK-2 Gr. 3 -6 Community Outreach Gr. 7 -12 ____ 1 District

Our First Step in the MTSS Process Establish a School Based Leadership Team (SBLT) • • • Who will represent the staff Who will work collaboratively to problem solve Who will be willing to meet after the scheduled day (availability) Who is motivated to improve and will use data Who will bring diverse expertise and skills Who will share and model our work for others • QS Team: Principal, Assistant Principal, School Psychologist, Union Building Representative, Special Education Teacher, Counselor, Grade Level Teacher Rep. from each grade level – Total of 10 professionals

Our Next Step in the MTSS Process 1. The SBLT learned and practiced how to use the Data-Based Problem Solving Protocol. 2. As a team, we defined our goal, then using the protocol we developed several hypothesis, and developed a plan.

Reading WIN Block GRADE 3 & 4 September, 2016 Sort Grade(s) STAR Level Student sorting protocol determined. Ratio 3 and 4 1 7: 1 3 2 9: 1 3 3 11: 1 3 4 4 4 2 3 Steps in WIN block development- 15: 1 6: 1 12: 1 Teachers Ann C, Diana, Marilyn (Maureen P, Shelly I, Joe) Andrea, Bretti, Mary S. Ann G. , Kari, Theresa, Sean O. Sherry, Ericka (Candace) Jackie, Michael Ali, Lauren R. , Brenna (Maura M. ) 4 4 16: 1 Lucinda, Rayna, Stephanie M. 3 and 4 5 17: 1 Colleen S. , Sue S. (Lisa E. ) Title 1 5: 1 Kim Data Teams to meet every 6 weeks to adjust student placement as needed. Based on data, identify students whose needs include a SEL WIN group. 1 st Sort - based on September Benchmark scores 2 nd Sort - based on January Benchmark 3 rd Sort – based on May Benchmark Goal – to reduce number of students needing Level 1, 2, and 3 support. Meet ALL students at their instructional level. Review: Monitor of student achievement with STAR assessments, MCAS results, increased student achievement. Monitoring questions: time for transition, is 30 minutes enough?

The Change Process 1. Share the problem with staff – Student Achievement 2. Supply the historical data from MCAS and PARCC 3. Formulate hypothesis - why? ? ? 4. Identify high impact low output changes 5. Long term changes – high impact, higher output 6. Celebrate QUICK WINS 7. Connect change to purpose – what is the goal and why?

Quick Wins • Change in attendance practice – increased monitoring • Modified arrival process – parent notification • Developed a system to collect data for bathroom, nurse, guidance visits monitor time out of class • Shifted morning announcements to 8: 15 vs 8: 30 AM • Buy in! • BIGGEST GAIN - INCREASE IN INSTRUCTIONAL TIME. Long Term Initiatives • • • Change in teaching schedule implemented WIN groups began this academic year – October 4 th. Data review and protocols established – guiding instruction. Data team review dates in place for the year (every 6 weeks approx. ) SBLT becomes proficient with data problem solving process. Each member of SBLT is on a PLC team to follow the Data-Based Problem Solving process as a way of doing business.

Kalamazoo RESA Head Start Stephanie Lemmer

Stephanie Lemmer Ed. S • Taught Middle School Reading in Chicago Public Schools and worked to implement RTI literacy and behavior as a school. • Worked as a literacy coach in an elementary school implementing RTI for 3 years as part of a district effort • Coached the Implementation of Mi. BLSI in middle schools and elementary schools for three years throughout the county. • Implemented MTSS in a Pre-K – 3 Elementary Building as an Elementary Principal. • Implemented MTSS in Head Start for Kalamazoo County as the Principal (Director) of Head Start.

Kalamazoo RESA Head Start • Awarded the grant in July 2013 • Consider it a district wide initiative (44 classrooms throughout the county, housed in 6 of the 9 school districts, serve 708, 3 and 4 -yearolds) • Started with literacy and behavior 2013 • Piloted numeracy in 2014 and scaled up in 2015 • Applied MTSS to Family Services, and Health Services components of the grant in 2015 • We are in year 4 of implementation

Successes • Increase in literacy outcomes for 3 and 4 -year olds. • Decrease in absences. • Increase in the number of children who have up to date health requirements. (physical, hearing and vision, dental exams) • Decrease in the number of behavior referrals.

Challenges • Sustainability: We have a significant turn over in staff due to pay. It is difficult to move forward when you are constantly training novice staff. • Duration: Some of the children we only serve one year and then they move into their local school districts 4 -year-old program. At most we have two years with the children we serve. Having sensitive data is critical in order to make program decisions.

Pre. SET Program Summary Scores 120 100 100 100 90 80 71 60 40 20 0 0 Expectations Defined Behavioral Expectations Responses to Organized and Predictable Monitoring and Decision Taught Appropriate/Challenging Environment Making Behaviors Family Involvement Management Program Support

Behavior Reports by Month 2014 -2015 and 2015 -2016 SWIS Data: Behavior Reports Per Month 192 200 175 150 122 125 115 107 97 100 81 76 75 50 62 51 47 33 26 94 42 51 42 31 25 0 0 0 September October November December January 2014 -2015 February 2015 -2016 March April May June

Literacy: PELI Data

Study: Problem analysis (End of the year) 3 Year Olds PELI Data Per Year % of students at benchmark 90 82 80 74 72 57 55 60 48 50 40 66 65 70 49 48 47 38 30 20 10 0 Alphabet Knowledge Phonological Awareness 2013 -2014 Vocab/Oral Language 2014 -2015 -2016 Comprehension

Study Problem Analysis (end of the year) 4 Year Olds PELI Data Per Year % of students at benchmark 80 71 70 65 76 76 76 68 59 58 60 50 73 53 42 41 40 30 20 10 0 Alphabet Knowledge Phonological Awareness 2013 -2014 Vocab/Oral Language 2014 -2015 -2016 Comprehension

Numeracy: Myigdi’s data

Study: problem analysis (1 -to-1 correspondence counting) 1 -to 1 Correspondence Counting # of students in each score level 200 182 178 180 164 160 132 126 140 120 100 80 80 60 54 26 40 12 20 0 Fall Intensive Winter Strategic Benchmark Spring

Study: problem analysis (Number naming) Number Naming # of students in each score level 275 300 232 250 217 200 150 100 88 69 33 50 24 16 4 0 Fall Intensive Winter Strategic Benchmark Spring

Study: problem analysis (oral counting) Oral Counting # of students in each score level 250 192 200 191 150 110 100 50 72 48 16 10 0 Fall Intensive Winter Strategic Benchmark Spring 167

Study: problem analysis (quantity comparison) Quantity Comparison # of students in each score level 250 225 200 150 133 138 136 126 100 76 55 41 50 28 0 Fall Intensive Winter Strategic Benchmark Spring