Implementation of Scientifically Research-Based Interventions (SRBI) at the Secondary Level Erika Johnson, M.A.

The scientifically research-based intervention model (SRBI) is a comprehensive system of supports targeting students at-risk for academic and behavior difficulties by supporting them through evidence-based interventions. The system of supports is broken into three fluid tiers, as displayed below.

(Adapted from MA DOE, 2013; MI DOE, 2010, p. 4; CT SDE, 2008, p. 12)

In order to lay the foundation for district-wide SRBI practices, a leadership team must be formed. Within Town Public Schools a district-wide SRBI committee has been established and meets on a monthly basis. Representatives from each school, such as principals, literacy specialists, school psychologists, and regular and special education teachers, join members of the district team, including Pupil Personnel Services and an Assistant Superintendent, to dialogue about strengths, challenges, and next steps for the district. SRBI has been implemented consistently within the elementary schools in Town Public Schools and there is an increasing push to do the same at the secondary level. In the elementary schools, students are initially assessed (pre-test) at the beginning of the year using curriculum-based measures (DIBELS). Each grade level team is provided either a half-day or full day planning time to review the data and determine which students are in need of additional support and what specific areas (diagnostic assessment). In addition to academic performance, grade level meetings address attendance and behavioral concerns, which are often reviewed first as they can interfere significantly with academic performance. Following the grade level meetings, the school-based SRBI team comes together for a final planning session before the start of the intervention period. The pre-test, grade level meetings, and SRBI team meeting all occur within a 5 day period of time, followed by a sixteen day intervention cycle. Interventions or Tier Time includes ninety minutes of uninterrupted literacy instruction for all students (Tier I), differentiated instruction in the general education classroom (Tier I), thirty minutes of additional instruction three times per week (30 min x 3 days/week) for Tier II (tutor), and thirty additional minutes of instruction five times per week (30 min x 5 days/week) for Tier III (certified teacher, literacy specialist). Students in Tier III supports receive their intensive instruction in addition to Tier I and II supports. Students are progress monitored 1

during this time in order to inform whether or not the intervention should continue, be repeated, be intensified, or if a student should begin an intervention (decline in skills since last assessment and now in need of intervention). Once progress monitoring data and post-intervention data has been collected, grade level and school-wide meetings occur and a new intervention cycle begins. Challenges at the Secondary Level As SRBI coordinators at the secondary level attempt to implement a tiered system of supports, there are a number of challenges. One of the most important is buy-in and leadership from school administrators. While there are school leaders that sit on this committee, there is a lack of motivation to move the efforts forward. Currently, the freshman team administrator is working to implement positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and tiered levels of interventions within the Freshman Academy. However, when students are promoted to tenth grade those supports are no longer available. The supports that are in place for all students and the Freshman Academy will be discussed in further detail below. Though strong leadership is at the crux of successful implementation of SRBI, there are other challenges unique to the secondary level, specifically high school. Town High School is comprised of approximately 2,000 students with varying levels of need. Classes are leveled at the high school with the exception of a handful of heterogeneous classes (levels 5, 7, 9 together). According to the teachers contract is sued by the Town Education Association teachers are required to teach no more than five classes; are provided one planning period and one lunch period each day; are assigned one duty period (e.g., lavatory, study hall) each day; and are required to hold office hours for one hour each week. Due to the tight regulations of teaching hours and break allotment, a challenge has been working with the teachers union to permit additional instructional time for tiered interventions. For example, teachers who work in the Math Lab, which will be discussed below, do so as their duty. However, this is only a handful of teachers in a particular subject area. Recently, there has been some backlash regarding teacher attendance at Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meetings during their allotted planning time; planning for an individual student versus a class or section. Student schedules and credit distribution also pose additional challenges. Students are required to take a particular distribution of courses and credits to meet Connecticut standards and graduation requirements. As a result schedules are often tightly packed, especially if a student is retaking a class due to loss of credit. Student attendance rates are also variable and class cuts are common among students. School-wide PBIS initiatives would address behavioral problems, such as school climate, and attendance, for eighty percent of students. One argument against the implementation of interventions is the decreased likelihood of students attending if no credit was attached to the instruction. However, it is also unfair to provide credit for interventions when it is only offered for a short amount of time (4-6 weeks, one marking period) and not available for other students (i.e., those who are successful in Tier I). Current Practices In an effort to develop a school-wide (Grades 9-12) PBIS initiative a program titled Connections was developed. Connections aims to develop an advisor-advisee relationship between teachers and students. Two teachers and/or staff meet with a group of students (approximately twenty-five) on a bi-monthly basis in place of homeroom. A curriculum has been created and activities have been provided for teachers to complete with their students. Though the philosophy behind the program aligns with SRBI and principles of PBIS, there is a lack of teacher and student buy-in. Many, both teachers and students, view the Connections time as a study hall and do not implement the curriculum with fidelity. Additional training on the importance of school-wide PBIS and the potential outcomes would be beneficial for all to hear and could improve school specific outcomes. (For additional thoughts and reflections on Connections, please see my reflection in Domain 5). There are minimal academic interventions available for students across tenth to twelfth grade, with the exception of Math Lab and teacher office hours. The Math Lab occurs throughout the day and is supervised 2

by teachers available during a given period. Students are provided with extra help on assignments or can complete extra practice using computerized programs. While the program exists for all students to use, it is most often used by students who are required to attend due to special education or Section 504 plan, or those who are brought directly by their math teacher. Many report that they do no use the Math Lab because their specific teacher is not available when they can attend. Additionally, students are not receiving credit (i.e., graduation) or extra credit, in most cases, to attend. Without the extrinsic motivation to attend, students fail to do so. However, by not attending many students lose credit in their math course, requiring them to make it up. Within the Freshman Academy are a series of additional supports to help students be successful. Students are placed on teams of teachers with each core content area represented. These teachers come together each week to address concerns, highlight accomplishments, and make recommendations. This is beginning stages of developing SRBI within the Freshman Academy. However, these teachers are not currently collecting useful data to make informed decisions for supplemental and intensive supports, which have not been put in place yet. One area of professional development for these teachers is to train them on specific and easy data collection, which will help inform their instructional practices and support recommendations. In addition to the grade-level team structure, the Freshman Academy has recently enacted an alternative to in-school suspensions and resource for students who are at-risk for retention. The Town High School secured a grant that is providing tutors to these students to help them with their academic work. The tutors work with students for all or part of a day in order to get them organized and complete missing assignments, especially long-term assignments that have been avoided. As students are referred back to the tutors they develop a rapport and relationship, which positively impacts their behavior in school. Currently, a school counseling intern at Town High School is working to develop a data collection tool to assess the effectiveness of this intervention on both academics and behavior, which will include work completion rates, disciplinary referrals, and teacher ratings on a brief behavior rating scale. Another new initiative for ninth grade students is the introduction of reading support. There are currently four reading tutors that provide small group instruction for students who struggle with reading. Students are taken from their study hall or lunch on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to receive instruction from the tutors. These tutors have also developed a Writing Lab, which is available for all students (Grades 9-12) Moving Forward The above highlights some of the challenges faced by Town High School and secondary schools across the country. There is a strong need to increase teacher understanding and buy-in to the importance of implementing tiered levels of support for students across grade levels (Wright, 2012). However, professional development is not the only hurdle getting in the way. The allocation of resources and focus tends to be on the elementary school level because thats where the research lies. While improving academic performance at the elementary school level will increase the likelihood of later academic success, it does not necessarily alleviate all problems. The district must shift some of their focus from the elementary school and place it on preparing students exiting high school and entering post-secondary education or the workforce. Additional obstacles include teacher contracts, scheduling, and graduation requirements. There is also a need for interventions that are appropriate for fostering positive study skills, such as time management and notetaking, in addition to math and reading. At Town High School there is a chance to make a change for the better. With the implementation of many positive initiatives, the Freshman Academy can serve as a first manageable step to developing a larger systemic change. While there are initiatives in place, priority tasks have been overlooked. Wright (2012) provides an outline of steps that schools must take when developing an SRBI system at the secondary level. First, schools must develop screening procedures to identify students who are at-risk. Without this data it is unclear what interventions are needed, at what intensity, and for whom. Secondly, faculty must come together with a shared understanding of how Tier I interventions support student gains. The implementation 3

of Connections has met a lack of teacher buy-in. However, by educating a smaller population of teachers there is an opportunity to permeate the larger system with knowledge and positive results. Professional development is critical at this stage, especially for teachers who do not see how reading and math interventions affect their course directly, and how SRBI aligns with the Common Core Standards. School policy must be revised to articulate a consistent expectation for work completion and homework (Task 3) and its enforcement across subject areas must be enforced within reason (e.g., specific case by case exceptions). As student concerns are identified, teachers and other professionals must have a means of referring students. The development of multidisciplinary problem-solving team (Task 4) is critical to working with teachers to identify and prioritize areas of concern, write intervention plans, and conduct follow-up. The larger freshman team, which includes the administrator, social worker, school psychologist, and guidance counselors, meet on a weekly basis to review student concerns and progress. This would be an opportunity to implement a structured meeting format for intervention planning. In doing so the team will also help to develop an intervention bank and assess the inventory of resources (Task 5). Currently, Town High School is working to assess the resources that are available within the district and what the cost is, especially due to the significantly limited budget. The freshman administrator has worked with the district to secure a grant in order to provide additional resources to his students, including a student support center (alternative to inschool suspension for ninth grade students). Using grants the district and school may be able to secure funding necessary for additional programming options, such as licenses for Study Island (http://www.studyisland.com/web/index/) and online instruction through OdessyWare (http://www.odysseyware.com/). Once a problem-solving team has been established, the team must develop supplemental, evidence-based interventions to address the needs of at-risk students (Tier II) based on available resources. Often times, this is where programs are halted because of teacher contracts, scheduling, and credits. All members of the school and district community must find value in SRBI and be willing to make it work. When students continue to struggle, there must be a Tier III referral process (Task 7). The referral process must be explicit as to how students should be identified for additional support and the types of concerns that can be addressed with the resources available. One problem with the current system is that teachers want to jump ahead to special education before attempting other interventions. This may continue or teachers may refer students immediately to Tier III support without attempting to address concerns with less intensive interventions. Students must also be held responsible and accountable for their participation and investment (Task 8). Wright (2012) suggests using intervention contracts with students in order to secure their compliance with the intervention(s). Across all tiers, progress monitoring is key (Task 9) and without data there is know room to make adjustments. Data can be an overwhelming and daunting task for many teachers, but it does not have to be. The initial training period will come with its challenges, but overtime teachers will be able to identify the benefits of a more streamlined system. The Connecticut State Education Resource Center (SERC) has outlined various assessment inventories for universal screening, diagnostic assessment, and progress monitoring specific to the secondary level for reading, math, writing, and behavior/social/emotional. This document informs school personnel what is assessment tools and resources are available within a given concept area. By attempting to address these priorty areas within a contained population (i.e., Freshman Academy) and within a particular area (e.g., reading OR math OR writing), the shift to an SRBI model is more manageable. With each implementation year there will come new challenges that will only make future implementation smoother.

References Connecticut State Department of Education (2008). Using scientific research-based interventions: Improving education for all students (Executive Summary). Retrieved from http://www.ctserc.org/s/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=320:srbi-connecticutsframework-for-rti-executive-summary-and-full-document&catid=17:eip&Itemid=110 State Education Resource Center (2012). Secondary assessments: Universal screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/cali/secondary_assessments_4-9-12.pdf Massachusetts Department of Education (2013). The Massachusetts tiered system of supports (MTSS). Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mtss/ Michigan Department of Education (2010). School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Implementation guide. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/SchoolwidePBS_264634_7.pdf Wright, J. (2012). RtI success in secondary schools: A toolkit for middle and high school students. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing.