DRAFT May 27 20091

MN RtI Center

Schools, Families, and Response to Intervention

A module for pre-service and in-service professional development

MN RTI CenterModule author: Amy Reschly, PhD

www.scred.k12.mn.us click on RTI Center

DRAFT May 27 20092

MN RtI Center2

MN RTI Center Training Modules

This module was developed with funding from the MN legislature It is part of a series of modules available from the MN RTI Center

for use in preservice and inservice training:

Module Title Authors

1. RTI Overview Kim Gibbons & Lisa Stewart

2. Measurement and RTI Overview Lisa Stewart

3. Curriculum Based Measurement and RTI Lisa Stewart

4. Universal Screening (Benchmarking): (Two parts)

What, Why and How

Using Screening Data

Lisa Stewart

5. Progress Monitoring: (Two parts)

What, Why and How

Using Progress Monitoring Data

Lisa Stewart & Adam Christ

6. Evidence-Based Practices Ann Casey

7. Problem Solving in RTI Kerry Bollman

8. Differentiated Instruction Peggy Ballard

9. Tiered Service Delivery and Instruction Wendy Robinson

10. Leadership and RTI Jane Thompson & Ann Casey

11. Family involvement and RTI Amy Reschly

12. Five Areas of Reading Kerry Bollman

13. Schoolwide Organization Kim Gibbons

DRAFT May 27 20093

MN RtI Center

Overview

Background Systems theory: student learning in context

Response to Intervention

Current trends in the family engagement literature

RTI-Family Engagement Model

DRAFT May 27 20094

MN RtI Center

Background Questions

Who is responsible for student learning? What does No Child Left Behind imply about responsibility?

When a student isn’t doing well at school, to what do we attribute this? Differences in how families and schools would answer this

question?

What supports student learning at home? At school? Are there differences in how families and schools would

answer this question?

MN RtI CenterDRAFT May 27 2009 5

Child

Chrono-System

across time

Child

Chrono-System

across time

Ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner

DRAFT May 27 20096

MN RtI Center

Three-Legged Stool: Students, Families, and Schools

DRAFT May 27 20097

MN RtI Center Reschly & Christenson, 2009

Ecological Systems Theory: Families and Schools Many studies and policies (re. families and schools)

were developed without a theoretical framework Needed to advance research and guide practice

Jordan et al., 2001

Systems Theory Provides the theoretical foundation for working across families

and schools to promote student success Focus on understanding child development (learning and

behavior) in context Reciprocal interactions and relationships among these contexts

(families and schools) over time

DRAFT May 27 20098

MN RtI Center Christenson & Anderson, 2002

Learning Context An interwoven structure of circumstances and people

that surround the child across systems at a given point in time and over time.

Consider the “affordance value” of this context—or how the learning context facilitates or impedes child adaptation to challenges and demands of schooling.

Question should be… How does the social context support or thwart the development

of student competence (behavior, academics, socially) for students across settings and time?

MN RtI Center

DRAFT May 27 2009 9

Ecological Systems theory applied to understanding student achievement ==

Learning Environment

The Total Learning Environment For An

Individual Student

Academic Behavior

Home SupportInstructional Support

Home-School Support

Ysseldyke & Christenson

DRAFT May 27 200910

MN RtI Center

Implications We cannot understand student competence or

difficulties as a function of home or school – must consider the entire system (children, family, school, community, peers)

Schools and homes are the primary socializing and learning contexts for students. Relationships between families and school personnel are important for promoting competence -> Mesosystem

DRAFT May 27 200911

MN RtI Center

Implications (Cont’d)

Risk is not located within student, home, or school systems, but distributed across systems and represented in interactions. Pianta & Walsh, 1996

High risk: lack of congruence, poor relationships between home and school

Low risk: family and school systems are well-functioning, positive relationships promote congruence and shared responsibility

DRAFT May 27 200912

MN RtI Center

Assessment & Intervention Questions

What are typical assessment practices?

Where are interventions implemented?

What does our understanding of ecological systems theory mean for assessment? What about intervention?

DRAFT May 27 200913

MN RtI CenterReschly, Chaffin, Christenson, & Gutkin, 2007

Response to Intervention

Calls for reform over many years to address…

Within child conceptualizations of educational difficulties

Too little time for prevention and early intervention

More rhetoric than action in creating meaningful opportunities for parent engagement

Assessment conducted for the purpose of eligibility determination rather than intervention

Reliance on special education placement as a means of addressing student difficulties

DRAFT May 27 200914

MN RtI Center Reschly et al., 2007

Promise of RTI

May address many of these criticisms Focus on all students Contexts essential to success – implications for assessment

and intervention Families are necessary, not optional

Changes inherent in RTI creating an opportunity to meaningfully engage families Prevention, screening, and early intervention Frequent systematic data collection Focus on Problem-Solving Change from where to teach to how, what and is it working?

to produce optimal student learning

DRAFT May 27 200915

MN RtI Center

Working with Families

The evidence is consistent, positive, and convincing: families have a major influence on their children’s achievement in school and through Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7)

DRAFT May 27 200916

MN RtI Center

Out of School Time

From birth to the age of 18, students spend more than 90% of their time outside of schools. Walberg

Efforts to improve student achievement, and close the achievement gap among various groups of students (e.g., those in poverty, racial/ethnic groups, English learners), must take into account the power of out-of-school time. Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005

DRAFT May 27 200917

MN RtI Center

Families

Families have an enormous impact on student outcomes… but what they do is more important than who they are

Family process variables account for a much greater portion of the variance in achievement (60%) than those related to status (25%)

Kellaghan et al., 1993

DRAFT May 27 200918

MN RtI Center

Mesosystem: Families & Schools

When schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more. Henderson & Mapp, 2002 (p. 7)

There has been a gradual deconstruction of the notion that families and schools have separate responsibilities for student learning. Reschly & Christenson, 2009

DRAFT May 27 200919

MN RtI Center

Mesosystem: Congruence

The processes and characteristics that enhance academic achievement are essentially the same - whether found in the home or in the school” Chall

Home predictors of school learning—work habits of the home, academic guidance and support, stimulation to explore and discuss ideas and events, language environment, and academic aspirations and expectations—are comparable to school factors that enhance achievement Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993

DRAFT May 27 200920

MN RtI Center Christenson & Peterson, 2006; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002

Common Factors Across Home-School-Community Related to Student Competence

Shared Standards and Expectations The level of expected performance held by key adults for the

student is congruent across home and school, and reflects a belief that the student can learn.

Consistent Structure The overall routine and monitoring provided by key adults for the

student have been discussed and are congruent across home and school.

Cross-setting Opportunity to Learn The variety of learning options available to the youth during school

hours and outside of school time (i.e., home and community) supports the student’s learning.

(Cont’d on next slide)

DRAFT May 27 200921

MN RtI Center

Common Factors Across Home-School-Community Related to Student Competence (Cont’d)

Mutual Support The guidance provided by, the communication between, and the interest

shown by adults to facilitate student progress in school is effective. It is what adults do on an ongoing basis to help the student learn and achieve.

Positive, Trusting Relationships The amount of warmth and friendliness; praise and recognition; and the

degree to which the adult-youth relationship is positive and respectful. It includes how adults in the home, in the school, and in the community work together to help the student be a learner.

Modeling Parents and teachers demonstrate desired behaviors and commitment

and value toward learning and working hard in their daily lives to the student.

Christenson & Peterson, 2006; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002

DRAFT May 27 200922

MN RtI Center

Family Involvement: A Universally Endorsed Ideal Initiatives, position statements from national

organizations (e.g., PTA, NASP), and legislation (e.g., NCLB, IDEA) related to family involvement Not only ensuring family rights but a universal goal

of encouraging family engagement and involvement in education

Not there yet…. Vision of partnerships among educators and families not reached

22

MN RtI Center

DRAFT May 27 2009 23

Status of Family Engagement FieldShifting away from… Currently…

Why work with families? How? What works?

Parent involvement Family Involvement/Engagement

School-defined involvement Varied definitions of involvement and support for learning at school and in the home

•Different types of involvement = different outcomes

Activity lists Any number of activities may accomplish a specific goal or outcome (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006).

•Attention to ‘fit’

Evidence-based interventions

Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009

DRAFT May 27 200924

MN RtI Center

Families, Schools and RTI:Evidence-Based Interventions

NCLB, IDEA, Task Forces within APA Divisions What works, for whom, and under what conditions?

Various recent literature reviews and meta-analyses examining family and family-school interventions E.g., Division 16 Task Force (Carlson & Christenson,

2005); Nye, Turner, & Schwartz, 2007; Henderson & Mapp, 2002.

DRAFT May 27 200925

MN RtI Center

Carlson & Christenson, 2005 Areas reviewed: parent training and therapy, consultation, involvement,

and family focused early childhood interventions

Moderate to large effect sizes across areas

Most effective interventions were those with a systems orientation: Collaboration interventions w/ two-way communication, monitoring

and dialogue Focused parent education programs (specific behavior or learning

outcomes) Parent involvement programs with parents as tutors in specific

subjects Parent consultation

DRAFT May 27 200926

MN RtI Center

Meta-Analysis Example: Nye et al., 2007

Effects of parent involvement programs on academic performance of elementary students

Overall positive, significant effects

Most studies in area of reading – stable, moderate effect sizes

Significant moderate effect sizes in math, more variable

Moderator analyses Large effects for intervention programs in which parents

provided some reward or incentive for student performance, followed by those with parent education/training components

DRAFT May 27 200927

MN RtI Center Reschly, 2008a; Reschly & Christenson, 2009

Caveats

Much more research needed Directions and issues outlined in Carlson & Christenson, 2005;

Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Ginsburg-Block, Manz, & McWayne, in press; Jordan et al., 2001; Sheridan, 2005, among others.

Effective practices vary across sites Depending on the unique needs of families, students, and

schools and the resources available to families, schools, and communities

Particular programs or strategies may have different effects at different ages Jordan et al., 2001

MN RtI Center

DRAFT May 27 2009 28

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Co-communicators

Co- supporters

Co- learners

Co- teachers

Co- Decision-makers

Moles (1993) Co-Roles

Setting conditions for working with families: Approach, Atmosphere, Attitudes*

*Christenson & Sheridan, 2001

Collaborative problem-solving

Collaborative problem-solving

Figure 1. Family-School Co-Roles and Partnerships in RtI

Reschly (2008b), RTI Action Network

Family-School Co-Roles & Partnerships in RTI

DRAFT May 27 2009 29

MN RtI Center

References• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley.

• Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom? New York: Guilford Press.

• Christenson, S.L., & Anderson, A.R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of the learning context for students' academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 378-393.

• Christenson, S. L., & Carlson, C. (2005). Evidence-based parent and family interventions in school psychology: State of scientifically based practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 525-528. Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press.

• Christenson, S. L., & Peterson, C. J. (2006). Family, school, and community influences on children’s learning: A literature review. All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. www.parenting.umn.edu

DRAFT May 27 2009 30

MN RtI Center

References (Cont’d)• Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating

essential connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press.

• Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Ginsburg-Block, M., Manz, P. H., & McWayne, C. (in press). Partnering to foster achievement in reading and mathematics. In S.L. Christenson and A.L. Reschly (Eds). Handbook of School Family Partnerships. New York: Routledge.

• Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

• Jordan, C., Orzco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connections. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

• Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B. S. (1993). The home environment and school learning: Promoting parental involvement in the education of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DRAFT May 27 2009 31

MN RtI Center

References (Cont’d)

• Moles, O. (1993). Building school-family partnerships for learning: Workshops for urban educators. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education.

• Nye, C., Turner, H., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Approaches to parent involvement for improving the academic performance of elementary school age children. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/frontend2.asp?ID=9

• Pianta, R., & Walsh, D. B. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. NY: Routledge.

• Reschly, A.L. (2008a). Ecological approaches to working with families. Symposium with Gutkin, T.B., Doll, B.J., Reschly, A.L., Stoiber, K.C., Hintze, J.M., & Conoley, J.C. (2008, August). Ecological Approaches to School Psychological Services: Putting Theory Into Action. Held at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Boston, MA.

• Reschly, A.L. (2008b). Schools, families and response to intervention. Invited piece for the RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning Disabilities. Available on-line at: http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/Family/ar/Schools-Familes-and-Response-to-Intervention

DRAFT May 27 2009 32

MN RtI Center

References (Cont’d)

• Reschly, A., Coolong, M. A., Christenson, S. L., & Gutkin, T. B. (2007). Contextual influences and RTI: Critical issues and strategies. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns ,& A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer

• Reschly, A. L, & Christenson, S. L. (2009). Parents as essential partners for fostering students’ learning outcomes. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. Furlong (Eds). A handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 257-272). New York: Routledge.

• Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on evidence-based parent and family interventions: Will what we know now influence what we do in the future? School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 518-524.

• Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 397-400.

• Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., & Bouffard, S. (2005). Participation in youth programs: Enrollment, attendance, and engagement. [Special Issue] New Directions for Youth Development, 105.

• Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (2002). FAAB: Functional Assessment of Academic Behavior. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

DRAFT May 27 200933

MN RtI Center

Resources

All Parents Are Teachers Project. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. www.parenting.umn.edu

RTI Action Network, National Center on Learning Disabilities. www.rtinetwork.org

Harvard Family Research Projecthttp://www.hfrp.org/

Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, Dr. Susan Sheridan, University of Nebraska. http://cehs.unl.edu/edpsych/graduate/spCbc.shtml

DRAFT May 27 200934

MN RtI Center

Quiz

1.) Systems theory does what? A.) Provides a theoretical foundation for working across

families and schools B.) Focuses on understanding child development C.) Studies learning and behavior in context D.) Looks at reciprocal interactions and relationships among

families and schools over time E.) All of the above

DRAFT May 27 200935

MN RtI Center

Quiz (Cont’d)

2.) A promise of Response to Intervention is that families are ________not _________.

3.) Name three out of the six common factors across home-school-community related to student competence.

DRAFT May 27 200936

MN RtI Center

Quiz (Cont’d)

4.) Caveats of RTI: True or False 1- Much more research is needed 2- Effective practices do not vary by site 3- Particular programs/strategies may have

the same effects at different ages

DRAFT May 27 200937

MN RtI Center

The End

Note: The MN RTI Center does not endorse any particular product. Examples used are for instructional purposes only.

Special Thanks: Thank you to Dr. Ann Casey, director of the MN RTI Center, for

her leadership Thank you to Aimee Hochstein, Kristen Bouwman, and Nathan

Rowe, Minnesota State University Moorhead graduate students, for editing work, writing quizzes, and enhancing the quality of these training materials