Transcript Slide 1

Gloversville Enlarged School
District, Gloversville, NY
– Located in Fulton County approximately 50
miles northwest of Albany, NY.
– Considered by NYS as a rural district with
high student needs.
– Approx. 3500 students Pre-K through 12
– 65% of students are receiving free/reduced
lunch
– 18.7% of students have an IEP
Boulevard Elementary School
Gloversville, NY
RTI plan
2006-2007
Boulevard Elementary Regular Classroom Instruction
All students involved in core curriculum
program\whole group overview
Small group station work/students work independently or with TA on
activities that support Fab 5 and core program
Small group teacher station modified according to groups
needs/ same lesson different delivery based on need.
Struggling students—
small group instruction by
AIS outside classroom.
Struggling students—assessed
by deficit skills, provided
additional 30 minutes skills
based instruction.
AIS intervention period
Emergent students receive
intervention from
classroom teacher
Core debriefing/ all students
On-track students
are challenged
through classroom
activities designed
by teacher.
Boulevard’s Academic
Accelerated
Growth
AIS pullout for
strugglers and
low emergent
students as well
as Extended Day
opportunity
Slow Growth
or No Growth
RTI Approach
Regular
Classroom
Instruction
Intervention Services
Accelerated
Growth
Provide Small
Group
Specialized Skill
Instruction in
addition to
regular AIS time
as well as
Extended Day
Slow Growth
or No Growth
Accelerated
Growth
Provide
One-to-One
Specialized
Instruction
Slow Growth
or No Growth
LD ? –
provide
continued
instruction
(Adapted from Scanlon 2006)
Timeline for Boulevard Intervention K – 3
Student Monitoring
Month
action
Staff involved
On-going
progress monitoring
June
Form class lists based on Benchmarks/Terra
Nova
Form AIS lists using Benchmark scores
Classroom teachers
Coaches
AIS providers, Principal
September
Begin AIS support
Benchmark students
Regroup AIS based on first Benchmark
Send home Benchmark scores notifying parents
of student’s level
AIS providers
Classroom teachers
(for strategic)
AIS providers, coaches
October
review progress monitoring data,
adjust AIS groups according to data
AIS providers, coaches, principal
November
review progress monitoring data,
adjust AIS groups according to data
provide more in-depth assessment for students
making insufficient progress
AIS providers, coaches
K -2
every five days for
(struggling) intensive
once a month for
(emergent) strategic
3rd
Grade
Every 10 lessons for
(struggling) intensive
Once a month for
(emergent) strategic
On-going
Progress
Monitoring
December
review progress monitoring data, adjust AIS
groups according to data
Using assessment provide more intensive
intervention
(phonics skill groups, fluency etc.)
AIS providers, coaches,
Principal
K -2
every fifth day of
instruction for
(struggling)
intensive
10 Days for
(emergent)
strategic
January
Administer 2nd benchmark
Regroup students for AIS according to
data
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test
data
Send home Benchmark scores notifying parents
of student’s level
Classroom teachers, AIS
providers, coaches
February
review progress monitoring data,
adjust AIS groups according to data
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test
data
AIS providers, coaches,
Principal
March
review progress monitoring data,
adjust AIS groups according to data
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test
data
AIS providers, coaches
April
review progress monitoring data,
adjust AIS groups according to data
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test
data
AIS providers, coaches,
Principal
May
Administer 3rd benchmark
Regroup students according to data for AIS
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test
data
Classroom teachers, AIS
providers, coaches
June
Use benchmark 3 data and Terra Novas to form
class lists
and establish preliminary AIS groups for fall
Designate students qualifying for summer
school.
Send home benchmark reports and notification
of summer school participation.
Classroom teachers, AIS
providers, coaches
3rd Grade
Every 10 lessons for
intensive
Once a month for
strategic
Pre-test and posttest skill based
intervention
groups every
10 – 15 days of
lessons.
********
On Track Students
Assessed every
2 Months
Data Analysis Summary Sheet
We need to look for patterns within tests and between tests, to help inform corrective instruction.
Critical information can be collected through running records, listening to the student think aloud
as they arrive at answers, sampling vocabulary knowledge within passages, listing type of errors,
etc. Therefore, please record data and error analysis from such measures as: DIBELS tests, the
Phonological Awareness Test, the Gray Oral Reading Test, the PPVT, the Woodcock-Johnson III,
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Test, McGraw Hill Unit tests, Voyager Checkpoint testing,
teacher-made tests, etc.
Test
Results (e.g., Standard Scores)
Error Analysis Notes
District K-12 Classification Data for Special Education
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Referrals
70
Placements
55
47
7/03-6/04 7/04-6/05 7/05-6/06
Non-Disabled
Boulevard Elementary
Special Education K - 5
Resource
Room support
Replacement
classroom
45 minutes per day
40 minutes per day Students also receive
classroom
40 minutes
resource room
Materials:
Core program
intervention
Modified 3rd grade
McGraw-Hill
Leveled books
from core
Special Classroom
12:1:1
90 minute reading
block daily within
classroom
All Special Ed
students receive
30 min. of AIS
daily by Reading
Specialist
Horizons,
Reasoning & Writing,
Mastery Reading Plus
Students are benchmarked 3 times per year at grade level,
progressed monitored every 10 days at instructional level.
NASDSE
November 14, 2006
Margaret McGlinchey
Kim St. Martin
This document was produced and distributed through
an IDEA Mandated Activities Project for Michigan’s
Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative
(MiBLSi) awarded by the Michigan Department of
Education. The opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily reflect the position or policy of the
Michigan Department of Education, the Michigan State
Board of Education, or the U.S. Department of
Education, and no endorsement is inferred. This
document is in the public domain and may be copied
for further distribution when proper credit is given. For
further information or inquiries about this project,
contact the Michigan Department of Education, Office
of Special Education and Early Intervention Services,
P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
End of Year goal is for the student to demonstrate this
skill at 35 phonemes per minute-grey area
Now you see this student in the context of the
whole class. Does it make a difference in how
you think about this student?
• Yes
• No
Same building different teacher
Mission Statement
To develop support systems and
sustained implementation of a
data-driven, problem solving
model in elementary schools to
help students become better
readers with social skills
necessary for success.
Three Important Themes
• Create systems, not just
programs, to support each and
all students
• Earlier rather than later
• Evidence, not opinion
Participating
Schools
2004 Schools (21)
2005 Schools (31)
2006 Schools (50)
Reaching over 40,000 students
and 2,600 teachers and
administrators in 102 schools
and 17 ISDs!
School-Wide Support Systems for
Student Success
Intensive Intervention
Individualized, functional
assessment, highly specific
1-5%
7-15%
Universal Intervention
Core Instruction,
all students
Preventive
Targeted Intervention
Supplemental, some
students, reduce risk
80%
Behavior
Reading
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percent of Students at DIBELS Benchmark Level:
Cohort 1
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Kdg
First
Second
Grade Level
Third
Percent of Students at DIBELS Intensive
Level: Cohort 1
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Kdg
First
Second
Grade Level
Third
Comstock East Elementary
An Exemplar of MiBLSi
Year 1
Behavior
• Leadership team received training in
creating a positive behavior support
system
•February~April:
•3-5 school-wide behavior
expectations
•school-wide teaching matrix
•major vs. minor behavior
•consequences
•office referral form
Behavior Continued…
Summer 2004: teaching plans for
non-classroom settings
-hallway
-bathroom
-playground
-bus
-cafeteria
-library media center
-assembly
Year 1
Literacy
• DIBELS training was provided for all
K-5 staff
– Expectations for DIBELS testing:
Classroom teachers had a leadership
role in all DIBELS assessments.
– Progress monitoring expectations
•Intensive students-weekly
•Strategic students-monthly
Literacy Continued…
• Data Analysis
– Kindergarten retention data was
analyzed and discussed. Reading
Mastery I in grades K~1 was
implemented
– Child Study data analyzed: 100% of the
referrals cited reading as a major
concern.
Year 2
• Behavior
– August: school wide behavior
expectations taught directly and
formally, implemented
acknowledgment/reward system, SWIS
was used to monitor referral data
– December: staff met to discuss
regaining momentum for behavior
tickets, classroom incentives were
established to increase the number of
tickets given.
Behavior Continued…
Behavior Trainings:
• Fall-Leadership team attended training on
how to address tier 1 & 2 behaviors
(check-in/check-out system, SWIS data
analysis training)
• Winter-Leadership team received intensive
behavior training to address tier 3
behaviors (functional behavior
assessments, behavior intervention plans,
wrap-arounds)
Behavior Continued…
Implementation of Tier 2~Teir 3 Systems
• Behavior Intervention Team (B.I.T)
– Students receiving three major office referrals
were discussed at the B.I.T.
– Goal was to establish a behavior intervention
plan for students with input from teachers,
parents, administrators, and personnel having
behavioral expertise.
– Check-in/Check-out person was identified and
data collection system was established to
determine effectiveness of the plan
Year 2
Literacy
• 90-30 (K~5)
– 90 minutes of uninterrupted language
arts
– 30 minutes of targeted reading support
by reading personnel.
•The most intensive students working
with trained reading personnel.
•Students identified using
DIBELS/classroom assessment data
•Flexible grouping
Literacy Continued…
• 90-30-30 (K~1)
– All kindergarten and first grade students
received an additional 30 minutes of
intensive reading support using
Reading Mastery I to address phonemic
awareness and alphabetic principle.
– All students received 150 minutes of
daily language arts instruction.
– Supplemental programs became a part
of the core instruction to fill gaps.
Literacy Continued
–Leadership team received training
on
• analysis of core reading program
• effectiveness of intervention
programs
•grade level meeting structure
• application of data based decision
making
•action planning
Literacy Continued…
Grade Level Meetings
• The child study team changed from problem
solving for one student, to groups of students
within a grade level.
• Grade level teachers, principal, school
psychologist, reading personnel
• 1st Meeting: review of core program and
critical skills necessary for each grade level
• Subsequent Meetings:
– student progress monitoring data
– data based decision making
– Interventions
– resources
Year 3
• Behavior
– School Improvement Behavior
Committee reviewed 2004-2005 SWIS
data and identified months having
highest referral counts.
– Incentives were communicated to
students via school-wide assemblies.
(dessert buffet, pizza party, ice cream social)
– Second Step (social skills curriculum)
was being taught school-wide.
Year 3
Literacy
• 90-30-30 (K~5)
– 90 minutes of core instruction for all
students
– 30 minutes of targeted reading for
intensive and lower strategic students
• Sound Partners, Corrective Reading, Road to
the Code
– 30 minutes of intensive support for
lowest students
• Reading Mastery I & II, Teacher-Directed
PALS, Corrective Reading, Read Naturally,
Rewards
Percent at Benchmark Range
Second Grade: School to District
60
50
40
Comstock East 2003-2004
Comstock East 2005-2006
30
Other District Schools
2003-2004
Other District Schools
2005-2006
20
10
0
2003-2004
2005-2006
Comstock East
2003-2004
2005-2006
Other District Schools
Percent at Intensive Range Second
Grade: School to District
45
40
35
30
Comstock East 2003-2004
25
Comstock East 2005-2006
20
Other District Schools
2003-2004
Other District Schools
2005-2006
15
10
5
0
2003-2004
2005-2006
Comstock East
2003-2004
2005-2006
Other District Schools
Referrals Per Year Per 100
Students
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004-2005
2005-2006
Putting the Pieces Together
MiBLSi provided problem solving framework :
• to implement a culture of collaboration between
general education and special education staff
• for frequent assessment of student performance
• to allow staff common planning time, grade level
meetings, and staff meetings to address
student’s needs and adjust instruction
accordingly
All of these practices are in accordance with
NCLB, IDEA 2004 and are aligned with a
Response to Intervention model