History of G.O.A.L.

Diocesan Background / Rational

• Catholic Schools
• Religious Education Programs
• Survey Based Reasons for Implementation

Comparison of Models

• Discrepancy Model
• Response to Intervention Model

Federal, State and Church Timeline
Resources

In 2007, the principals of the Diocese of Superior asked the Superintendent of Schools to help them facilitate, organize and/or provide services to the children with needs in our schools. A principal committee was formed during the 2008-2009 school year to look at what was occurring in our Catholic Schools in regards to in-house servicing, public school servicing and needs of the students. Many of the concerns of our schools stemmed from frustrations with the public school services, support and resources, and their changing dynamics based on federal and state guidelines.

Through study and discussions it was determined that our schools need to find a way to collaborate more effectively and also begin to implement a much more scientifically based system of providing for all children who attend our schools. In understanding the push for public schools in the state of Wisconsin to move to a Response to Intervention (RTI) model, an expanded committee of principals began to investigate the Learning Consultant Model of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and have discussions with Leah Duszynski, Director of Inclusive Education from the Archdiocese of Chicago. Through this, many collaborative efforts have been made between the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Diocese of Superior – including the sharing of resources, ideas and expanding connections in the area of RTI in Catholic Schools.

Religious Education Programs:  While implementing the school’s program, it has always been the intent that programming would be offered for Religious Education as well. In 2011 a committee was formed to begin investigating ways to implement similar programming in to religious education at the parish levels. Similar resourcing and objectives to the schools are set for these programs as well.

In concluding that it is best to meet the needs of all learners rather than just a few, the concept of GOAL – Growth Opportunities for All Learners – was developed. Through the mission, vision and philosophy of the Diocese of Superior GOAL program, it is our intention to make as big of an attempt as possible to educate as many children as we can. Much of the programming for GOAL stems from the framework of RTI (Response to Intervention) with different traditional Catholic concepts and practices woven throughout. RTI is only a portion of the GOAL program but a solid framework to build from.

Survey based reasons for implementing GOAL in the Diocese of Superior…

• In 2009-2010, 15% of the students in the Diocese of Superior Catholic Schools needed special services or interventions based on learning, health and gifted needs.
• Usually parents have to make a “choice” for their child with needs - a Catholic education or a school setting that can provide additional resources to support areas of need.
• Catholic Schools, as a mission of the Church, need to re-create themselves and examine newer ways to support children and teachers in areas of need.
• All students are special and have needs. Catholic Schools need to find ways to provide access to learning for all students.
• Emphasize student outcomes rather than student deficits (Boyle 2010).
• Work to prevent struggles through strong standards-based curricula and high-quality instruction.
• Shift focus from student difficulty to school curriculum and instruction.

Discrepancy Model

Since the 1970’s schools used the discrepancy model, which focused on the discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic performance, to determine eligibility for specific learning disability services.

• Wait-to-Fail Model
• Ability/Achievement Discrepancy Formula
• Clear Eligibility Criteria (In or Out)
• Assessment Collected at Limited Number of Settings
• Problem-Within-Child Focus of Problem Solving
• Focus on Unalterable Variables
• Focus on “What”/Labels/Test Scores

Response to Intervention Model (RTI)

Today the shift is toward scientific interventions where the focus is between the discrepancy between student performance and benchmarks as well as pre- and post-intervention levels of performance.

• Intervene Early
• Direct Measures to Specific Skills
• Multi-Intervention Tiered Model of Service Delivery
• Use of Collaborative Problem Solving
• Multiple/Ongoing Data Points to Make Decisions
• Systems Approach to Problem Solving
• Focus on Alterable Variables
• Focus on “How”/Solutions

Federal, State and Church Timeline of Historical Significance to this shift of educational philosophy…

Before Individuals were put in state institutions where inaccurate or lack of testing inappropriately 1975 labeled children, thus providing ineffective, if any, education. U.S. schools only educated 1 in 5 children with disabilities – many states had laws that excluded certain children
 

• 1950-60’s The federal government began developing programs and establishing practices and procedures in working with children with disabilities including early intervention and special education services. Key federal laws that supported education of all children were developed.
• 1959 Training of Professional Personnel Act – train leaders to educate children with mental disabilities
• 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and State School Act – provided state with direct grant assistance to help children with disabilities (i.e. Chapter Programs now know as Title Programs and NCLB)
• 1972 Economic Opportunities Amendments – increased Head Start enrollment and Mills vs. Board of Education of the District of Columbia – establish responsibility of states and localities to educate children with disabilities
• 1973 Rehabilitation Act: Section 504 – prohibited discrimination and distinguished between refusal to accept because of disability and inability to perform with accommodations
• 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) – support states and local schools in 1) protecting student rights, 2) meeting individual needs and 3) improving results for children for ages 3-21 (amended in 1986 to include ages birth-21)
• 1978 Pastoral Statement of U.S. Catholic Bishops on People with Disabilities issued
• 1983 National Commission on Excellence in Education – published the report A Nation at Risk recommending 1) curriculum content needing to be strengthened, 2) schools adopting more rigorous and measurable standards, 3) time being used more effectively and 4) teaching programs and professions needing improvement.
• 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Title II now requires reasonable accommodations that would not fundamentally alter the programs and not create undue burden or expense. An Amendment changed the EHA name to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
• 1994 Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) put “A Nation at Risk” recommendations into action requiring 1) content and performance standards, 2) assessments aligned with standards and 3) accountability systems; while the Goal 2000: Educate America Act – focused on the needs of all students, not just disadvantaged and those at risk
• 1995 Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities issued.
• 1995 Welcome and Justice for Persons with Disabilities: A Framework of Access and Inclusion. A Statement of the U.S. Bishops issued.
• 1996 Wisconsin DPI establishes rules for eligibility for special services based on IASA.
• 2001 New rules were established by Wisconsin DPI for eligibility requirements
• 2002 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – reauthorized ESEA of 1965 making accountability, local control, parental involvement and funding the cornerstone of the nation’s education system (i.e. Title Programs restructured)
• 2004 IDEA reauthorized – emphasizing use of research based instruction and interventions
• Feb. 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Implemented “Race to the Top” which focused reforming all levels of education
• March 2010 Blueprint for Reform: Reauthorization of ESEA – which will re-align all Title money into support for 1) college and career-ready students, 2) great teachers and leaders in every school, 3) equity and opportunities for all students, 4) raising the bar and rewarding excellence and 5) promoting innovation and continuous improvement
• May 2010 Obama administration issued research to support the Blueprint for Reform.
• Sept. 2010 Think tanks combined data regarding responses to the Blueprint for Reform
• Sept. 2010 Wisconsin DPI Superintendent submitted a request to amend a rule for identifying children with specific learning disabilities which would make state law align with IDEA 2004 by requiring the use of a process based on a child’s responses to scientifically-based intervention (RTI) in identifying a specific learning disability. Schools will be given three years to transition to IEP (Individual Education Plan) teams required to use data from a child’s RTI.