Transcript Slide 1

Elementary
Teaching + Learning
February 17, 2015
Agenda
I. Chapter 62 + MTSS
II. English Language Learner Services
III. Supporting Teacher Growth + Development
IV. Organizational Updates Q + A
Chapter 62 + MTSS
Preparing for Full Implementation
New Learning
–Chapter 62
• Requirements
• DMPS Implementation
–Chapter 62, MTSS, & DMPS
• How do we bake our own MTSS cake?
–Designation of students with FAST Assessment Data
–Next Steps Action Planning
CHAPTER 62
K-3 Early Literacy Legislation
Iowa Code §279.68
Section 279.68 of Iowa Code was passed during the
2012 legislative session, but it was not until the spring
of 2013 that $8 million was appropriated to enact this
law, which focuses on the following:
• State-Approved Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring
Assessments
• Documented Interventions provided to students identified as
at-risk of or having a substantial reading deficiency
• Summer School & Retention starting in the summer of 2017
Big Ideas of Chapter 62
•
•
–
–
–
Universal screening in reading K-3
For students with a “substantial deficiency” in
reading:
Progress monitoring (same requirement as for students
who are “at risk”)
Intensive instruction, including 90 minutes a day of
scientific, research-based reading instruction
Notice to parents:
•
•
•
•
The student has a substantial deficiency
Strategies they can use to help the child succeed
Student progress reports
Retention if the student is not proficient by the end of third
grade, did not attend the summer program, and does not
qualify for a good cause exemption
DMPS Implementation
•
•
–
–
–
Universal screening in reading K-3
2014 K-1, 2015 2-3
For students with a “substantial deficiency” in reading:
Progress monitoring (same requirement as for students
who are “at risk”)
Intensive instruction, including 90 minutes a day of
scientific, research-based reading instruction
Notice to parents:
•
•
•
•
The student has a substantial deficiency
Strategies they can use to help the child succeed
Student progress reports
Retention if the student is not proficient by the end of
third grade, did not attend the summer program, and does
not qualify for a good cause exemption
DMPS Implementation
•
•
–
–
–
Universal screening in reading K-3
2014 K-1, 2015 2-3
For students with a “substantial deficiency” in reading:
Progress monitoring (same requirement as for students
who are “at risk”) 2015
Intensive instruction, including 90 minutes a day of
scientific, research-based reading instruction
Notice to parents:
•
•
•
•
The student has a substantial deficiency
Strategies they can use to help the child succeed
Student progress reports
Retention if the student is not proficient by the end of
third grade, did not attend the summer program, and does
not qualify for a good cause exemption
DMPS Implementation
•
•
–
–
–
Universal screening in reading K-3
2014 K-1, 2015 2-3
For students with a “substantial deficiency” in reading:
Progress monitoring (same requirement as for students
who are “at risk”) 2015
Intensive instruction, including 90 minutes a day of
scientific, research-based reading instruction Ongoing
Notice to parents:
•
•
•
•
The student has a substantial deficiency
Strategies they can use to help the child succeed
Student progress reports
Retention if the student is not proficient by the end of
third grade, did not attend the summer program, and does
not qualify for a good cause exemption
DMPS Implementation
•
•
–
–
–
Universal screening in reading K-3
2014 K-1, 2015 2-3
For students with a “substantial deficiency” in reading:
Progress monitoring (same requirement as for students
who are “at risk” 2015
Intensive instruction, including 90 minutes a day of
scientific, research-based reading instruction Ongoing
Notice to parents: 2015
•
•
•
•
The student has a substantial deficiency
Strategies they can use to help the child succeed
Student progress reports
Retention if the student is not proficient by the end of
third grade, did not attend the summer program, and does
not qualify for a good cause exemption
DMPS Implementation
•
•
–
–
–
Universal screening in reading K-3
2014 K-1, 2015 2-3
For students with a “substantial deficiency” in reading:
Progress monitoring (same requirement as for students
who are “at risk”) 2015
Intensive instruction, including 90 minutes a day of
scientific, research-based reading instruction Ongoing
Notice to parents: 2015
•
•
•
•
The student has a substantial deficiency
Strategies they can use to help the child succeed
Student progress reports
Retention if the student is not proficient by the end of
third grade, did not attend the summer program, and does
not qualify for a good cause exemption 2017, as required
Todaysmeet.com/February
CHAPTER 62,
MTSS,
& DMPS
MTSS- 5 Components
• Evidence-Based Curriculum and Instruction shall
be provided at the Universal level
• Universal Screening shall be used three times per
year
• Evidence-based, instructional interventions at the
Targeted and Intensive levels shall be provided to
each student who needs them
• Progress Monitoring Data shall be collected and
used to guide instruction
• Data-Based Decision Making
MTSS & Chapter 62
• Evidence-Based Curriculum and
Instruction shall be provided at
the Universal level
• Universal Screening shall be
used three times per year
• Evidence-based, instructional
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided to each student who
needs them
• Progress Monitoring Data shall
be collected and used to guide
instruction
• Data-Based Decision making
District-chosen literacy
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
Resources
MTSS & Chapter 62
Current
Practices:
District-chosen literacy
• DMPS
Evidence-Based
Curriculum
and
shall be provided at
curriculum
(Iowa Core) the
&
•Instruction
Data
Team/PLC
work
around
instructing
the Universal level
Resources
IowaScreening
Core Standards
• Universal
shall be
used three times per year
•
•
•
• Journeys (evidence-based) as a resource for
Evidence-based, instructional
teaching
the
standards
interventions
at the
Targeted
Intensive levels shall be
•and
Schedule/time
allotments that allow for
provided to each student who
needs
them
instruction
in all components of literacy
Progress Monitoring Data shall
Future
Work:
be collected
and used to guide
•instruction
District curriculum scales (SRG)
Decision making
•Data-Based
Enhanced
instructional practices through
work with the Instructional Framework
MTSS & Chapter 62
• Evidence-Based Curriculum and
Instruction shall be provided at
the Universal level
District-chosen literacy
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
Resources
• Universal Screening shall be
used three times per year
FAST Assessment
• Evidence-based, instructional
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided to each student who
needs them
• Progress Monitoring Data shall
be collected and used to guide
instruction
• Data-Based Decision making
MTSS & Chapter 62
District-chosen literacy
• Evidence-Based
Curriculum
and
DMPS Current
Practices:
Instruction shall be provided at
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
the
level 3x with K-1 as
• Universal
Using FAST
the screener to
Resources
• Universal
Screening
shall be who might
identify
students
need
FAST Assessment
used three times per year
additional support
• Evidence-based, instructional
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided to each student who
needs them
• Progress Monitoring Data shall
be collected and used to guide
instruction
• Data-Based Decision making
MTSS & Chapter 62
District-chosen literacy
• Evidence-Based
Curriculum
and
DMPS Current
Practices:
Instruction shall be provided at
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
the
level 3x with K-1 as
• Universal
Using FAST
the screener to
Resources
• Universal
Screening
shall be who might
identify
students
need
FAST Assessment
used three times per year
additional support
• Evidence-based, instructional
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided
each student who
FuturetoWork:
needs them
•
•
•Progress
Implementation
of
FAST
3x
for
grades
2-3
Monitoring Data shall
be collected
and used to guide
in 2015-2016
instruction
•Data-Based
Refined
data
analysis
practices
to
support
Decision making
MTSS
Use the data to determine next steps in
core literacy instruction- Example 1
CBM Reading as screener
• 1 minute measure
• Accuracy (% of words read
correctly)
• Automaticity (# of words
read correctly)
Conversation around data- by grade level
AUTOMATICITY (WCPM)
ACCURACY (% of words read correctly)
Conversation around data- by teacher
Automatic and Accurate
NOT Automatic but Accurate
NOT Automatic, NOT Accurate
“We need to enhance our core.”
Discussion
 Teachers: So many of our kids need automaticity support!
 Teachers: What does that mean & why is it important?
 Leadership: Rationale of automaticity building: If students are not automatic/fluent, their
brain is using all the power to READ the words; nothing is left to UNDERSTAND the
words!
 Teachers: We need to build that into core because we have so many needing that, and
it’s important!
 Leadership: What are you already doing? How can I support you?
 Teachers: I use these instructional strategies/routines with Journeys.
 Teachers: We need more time to plan how to emphasize this and incorporate these
strategies more strategically and more often.
 Leadership: Provided additional automaticity/fluency routines; provided time during
PLC to plan for enhanced routines and strategies.
Use the data to determine next steps in
core literacy instruction- Example 2
SRI as screener
• 86% basic or below
“We need more diagnostic data.”
Discussion
 Teachers: So many of our kids are basic or below!
 Teachers: Why? Some are red; some are yellow. But why?
 Leadership: Do we need more information (diagnostic data)?
Maybe our very low students could use a phonics screener to
see exactly where literacy is breaking down for them. A CBM
could tell us if our yellow students need fluency support or still
need more decoding support.
 Teachers: We agree.
 Leadership: Let’s gather that data and come back to
determine our next steps.
What connections can you make to these
examples of conversations around data?
Todaysmeet.com/February
Team Talk
• What connections can you make to these
examples of conversations around data?
MTSS & Chapter 62
• Evidence-Based Curriculum and
Instruction shall be provided at
the Universal level
District-chosen literacy
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
Resources
• Universal Screening shall be
used three times per year
FAST Assessment
• Evidence-based, instructional
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided to each student who
needs them
Targeted/Intensive interventions
required for students demonstrating a
substantial deficiency in literacy and are
recommended for students at-risk
• Progress Monitoring Data shall
be collected and used to guide
instruction
• Data-Based Decision making
MTSS & Chapter 62
District-chosen literacy
• Evidence-Based
Curriculum
and
DMPS Current Practices: curriculum (Iowa Core) &
Instruction shall be provided at
• Conversations
core instruction.
the
Universal level around enhancing Resources
• Data used
to identify
need additional
• Universal
Screening
shall bestudents who
FAST Assessment
usedintervention
three times per
year
support
• Building schedules
that allow for Targeted/Intensive
interventionistinterventions
support
• Evidence-based,
instructional
interventions
at the Targeted
required
for students
demonstrating
• Interventionists
working with small
groups
of students
with a
andaligned
Intensiveintervention
levels shall bematerials substantial deficiency in literacy and are
provided to each student who
recommended for students at-risk
needs them
FutureMonitoring
Work: Data shall
• Progress
• collected
Additional
of interventionists in delivering
be
andtraining
used to guide
instruction
instruction that match students’ needs
• Data-Based
making routines & strategies to support
• SupportDecision
with additional
intervention instruction
MTSS & Chapter 62
• Evidence-Based Curriculum and
Instruction shall be provided at
the Universal level
District-chosen literacy
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
Resources
• Universal Screening shall be
used three times per year
FAST Assessment
• Evidence-based, instructional
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided to each student who
needs them
Targeted/Intensive interventions
required for students demonstrating a
substantial deficiency in literacy and are
recommended for students at-risk
• Progress Monitoring Data shall
be collected and used to guide
instruction
FAST Assessment
• Data-Based Decision making
MTSS & Chapter 62
District-chosen literacy
• Evidence-Based
Curriculum
and
DMPS Current
Practices:
Instruction shall be provided at
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
•
Journeys
progress
monitoring
(PM)
assessments used by
the Universal level
Resources
interventionists in some schools as formative data
• Universal Screening shall be
FAST Assessment
• Scaffolding
used
three times District
per yearPLC building knowledge and
understanding around progress monitoring practices
• Evidence-based, instructional
Targeted/Intensive interventions
• Some schools
implementation
of FAST a
interventions
at the engaging
Targeted in initialrequired
for students demonstrating
and Intensive
shall be
substantial deficiency in literacy and are
progresslevels
monitoring
provided to each student who
recommended for students at-risk
needs them
Future Work:
• Progress Monitoring Data shall
Assessment
• collected
Implementation
of guide
FAST weekly FAST
progress
monitoring K-3
be
and used to
instruction
in 2014-2015 for students identified through FAST
• Teachers/Interventionists
use progress monitoring data to
• Data-Based
Decision making
determine if interventions are working
Formative Assessment vs. Progress Monitoring
Formative Assessment
Progress Monitoring
Informs instruction
Indicates whether intervention
is working (yes/no)
Informal, seamless within
instruction
Quick (1 minute), researchbased (valid) tool
Specific to instruction
General outcome measure
(goal = end of grade level
expectation)
Use the data to determine next steps in
core literacy instruction- Results!
Targeted instruction + progress monitoring =
grade level results
FALL KINDERGARTEN DATA
Use the data to determine next steps in
core literacy instruction- Results!
Targeted instruction + progress monitoring =
grade level results
PROGRESS MONITORING DATA
FALL KINDERGARTEN DATA
Use the data to determine next steps in
core literacy instruction- Results!
Targeted instruction + progress monitoring =
grade level results
WINTER KINDERGARTEN DATA
FALL KINDERGARTEN DATA
MTSS & Chapter 62
• Evidence-Based Curriculum and
Instruction shall be provided at
the Universal level
District-chosen literacy
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
Resources
• Universal Screening shall be
used three times per year
FAST Assessment
• Evidence-based, instructional
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided to each student who
needs them
Targeted/Intensive interventions
required for students demonstrating a
substantial deficiency in literacy and are
recommended for students at-risk
• Progress Monitoring Data shall
be collected and used to guide
instruction
FAST Assessment
• Data-Based Decision making
FAST assessments &
frequent data analysis
MTSS & Chapter 62
District-chosen literacy
• Evidence-Based Curriculum and
Instruction
shall be provided
at
DMPS Current
Practices:
curriculum (Iowa Core) &
the
level instructional planning
Resources
• Universal
Data team/PLC
based on data from
• Universal
Screening CFAs
shall be
team-created
FAST Assessment
used three times per year
•
Interventions in place for students identified as at risk
• Evidence-based,
instructional
Targeted/Intensive interventions
through data
interventions at the Targeted
and Intensive levels shall be
provided
each student who
FuturetoWork:
needs them
required for students demonstrating a
substantial deficiency in literacy and are
recommended for students at-risk
•
Intervention matched to students needs as identified by
• Progress
Monitoring
diagnostic
data Data shall
FAST Assessment
be collected and used to guide
• Classroom teachers and interventionists continually
instruction
FAST assessments &
analyzeDecision
PM datamaking
to determine effectiveness
• Data-Based
frequent data analysis
How do we bake our MTSS cake?
MTSS Cake
Ingredients= our school specifics
(students’ literacy needs,
emotional needs, other needs,
schedules, teachers,
Journeys/resources,
strategies/routines, time, parent
support, etc.)
Cake Boss= Us!
MTSS Cake
Our Tools
DE Tools- REQUIRED
Chapter 62 tools
FAST,
weekly progress
• Universal
Screening
monitoring,
intervention,
Assessments
documenting
through TIER
• Progress Monitoring
Assessments
• No Diagnostic tools
• No Instructional Tools
How do we put our ingredients together
using the tools we have?
What does your MTSS cake look like?
Todaysmeet.com/February
WHO NEEDS
WHAT NOW?
DESIGNATIONS OF STUDENTS
USING FAST DATA
Universal Screening
 Universal Screening = ALL children
 Brief and economical
 Use measures valid for this purpose (FAST)
 Provides overall indicator of performance
 Strong predictor of target outcome (literacy
success)
 Used to PREDICT students likely to be
successful vs. those who may not
Universal Screening
• Educators as Physicians
Screening
• “So, how are
you doing?”
• Blood
Pressure &
Temperature
Diagnostic
• Further
testing
(specific
blood tests,
ultrasounds,
etc)
Progress
Monitoring
• Follow up
tests to
determine
response to
treatment
Universal Screener
• K-1 subtests & 2-5 CBM Reading are indicators
of overall literacy “health.”
• Each K-1 subtest is weighted differently in the
composite score based on research.
• The screener does not give a detailed picture of
what the individual needs of the students are
(diagnostic assessments).
• If less than 80% of students meet the benchmark
of the universal screener, universal core should a
focus for enhancement.
Chapter 62 Requirements
• Strong literacy core
• Weekly Progress Monitoring using FAST PM
• Targeted and Intensive Interventions
WHO needs WHAT based
on FAST Universal
Screening data?
Student Designations
• “Appropriately progressing”
–Core is working. 
• “At Risk”
–RECOMMENDED intervention
–REQUIRED progress monitoring weekly
• “Substantially Deficient”
–REQUIRED intervention
–REQUIRED progress monitoring weekly
How do we know WHO needs WHAT?
• “Appropriately progressing”
Meeting
Point in
–Core Cut
is working.
 Fall AND Winter
• “At Risk”
–RECOMMENDED intervention
–REQUIRED progress monitoring weekly
• “Substantially Deficient”
–REQUIRED intervention
–REQUIRED progress monitoring weekly
How do we know WHO needs WHAT?
• “Appropriately progressing”
Meeting
Point in
–Core Cut
is working.
 Fall AND Winter
• “At Risk”
intervention
Not–RECOMMENDED
Meeting Cut Point
in the Fall OR Winter
–REQUIRED progress monitoring weekly
• “Substantially Deficient”
–REQUIRED intervention
–REQUIRED progress monitoring weekly
How do we know WHO needs WHAT?
• “Appropriately progressing”
Meeting
Point in
–Core Cut
is working.
 Fall AND Winter
• “At Risk”
progress
Not–REQUIRED
Meeting Cut
Point monitoring
in the Fall weekly
OR Winter
–RECOMMENDED intervention
• “Substantially Deficient”
intervention
Not–REQUIRED
Meeting Cut
Point in the Fall AND Winter
–REQUIRED progress monitoring weekly
How do we know WHO needs WHAT?
“Appropriately progressing”
Core is working. 
“At Risk”
• RECOMMENDED
intervention
• REQUIRED progress
monitoring weekly
“Substantially Deficient”
• REQUIRED intervention
• REQUIRED progress
monitoring weekly
Meeting Cut Point
in Fall AND Winter
Not Meeting Cut
Point in the Fall OR
Winter
Not Meeting Cut
Point in the Fall
AND Winter
Future Student Designations
Appropriately Progressing
At Risk
Substantially Deficient
Future Student Designiations
Appropriately Progressing
At Risk
Substantially Deficient
Practice Determining Student
Designations
“In the near future, Iowa
TIER is being programmed to
identify student designations
– date is not yet known”
Practice Determining Student – Student 1
Appropriately Appropriately Appropriately Appropriately Appropriately Appropriately
Progressing
Progressing Progressing Progressing Progressing
Progressing
Universal
Instruction
Universal
Universal Universal
Instruction Instruction Instruction
Not
Required
Not
Required
Not
Required
Not
Required
Universal
Instruction
Not
Required
Practice Determining Student – Student 1
Appropriately
Progressing
At Risk
Appropriately
Progressing
Universal
Universal
Universal Instruction,
Instruction Intervention Instruction
RECOMMEND
Not
Required
Required
Not
Required
At Risk
Substantially
Deficit
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
RECOMMEND
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
REQUIRED
Required
Required
Practice Determining Student – Student 1
At Risk
Substantially Substantially
Deficit
Deficit
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
RECOMMEND
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
REQUIRED
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
REQUIRED
Required
Required
Required
At Risk
Substantially
Deficit
At Risk
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
RECOMMEND
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
REQUIRED
Universal
Instruction,
Intervention
RECOMMEND
Required
Required
Required
NEXT STEPS
ACTION PLANNING
Next Steps Team Talk
• How might we continue to develop
understandings of Chapter 62 with our teachers?
• How can PLCs incorporate FAST data to support
discussions around enhancing core instruction?
• How will we work to match intervention
instruction to student need?
• What are our next steps for 2015-2016 full
implementation of Chapter 62?
www.todaysmeet.com/February
Resources
ELEMENTARY.DMSCHOOLS.ORG
•Links to DE Guidance documents
•TIER guidance document that supports navigating
TIER reports, assessment, & training
•Link to A&A account login page
•Documents to support analyzing the data
•Documents to support family communication about
FAST Assessments
•All training materials used previously
•And MORE!
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER
PROGRAM
NEW ELL GUIDANCE
Teaching and Learning Session
February 17, 2015
Operation Building
AGENDA
• New ELL Guidance from the USDE and Department of
Justice + Office for Civil Rights
• Recent Developments on Title III @ IDOE
• Des Moines ELL Program Status after the FED Visit
Highlights of New ELL Guidance from USDE
Department Of Justice(OCR)
• Identifying and Assessing All Potential EL Students.
• Providing Language Assistance to EL Students.
• Staffing and Supporting an EL Program.
• Avoiding Unnecessary Segregation of EL Students.
• Evaluating EL Students for Special Education and Providing
Dual Services.
Highlights of New ELL Guidance from USDE
Department Of Justice(OCR)
• Meeting the Needs of Students Who Opt Out of EL Programs
or Particular Services.
• Monitoring and Exiting EL Students from EL Programs and
Services.
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of a District’s EL Program.
• Ensuring Meaningful Communication with Limited English
Proficient Parents.
Why Is It So Urgent for Us?
FEDERAL VISIT TO IOWA
MAY 2014
Monitoring Districts to Ensure All Title III
Requirements Are Met
No Evidence of Implementing English
Language Proficiency Standards
Program Parental Notification
Requirements
Lack of Consistent Guidance on
Proficiency Levels (Exit Criteria)
Sanctions on Districts Have Not Made
AMAO for Four Consecutive Years
ELL Data Collection and Reporting
Supplement versus Supplant
How Does It Impact the
ELL Program in Des Moines?
Monitoring Districts to Ensure All Title III
Requirements Are Met.

Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP)
evidence of ELL service provided to ELL
ELL
schedule, high qualified staff member (ELL endorsed
teacher).

LAU plan will be attached to the district CSIP in the fall
submission.
No Evidence of Implementing English
Language Proficiency Standards (ELP)

Piloting an ELP module for the state in April or May 2015,
training ELL staff in the summer or fall 2015, implementing the
ELP in the spring 2016,

Training other staff in summer 2016.

Implementing a NEW English language assessment in the
spring 2016 (ELPA 21- English Language Proficiency
Assessment – 21st Century).

Implementing a NEW screener (initial identification) in the fall
2017.
Lack of Consistent Guidance on Language
Proficiency Levels (Exit Criteria)

Offering the ELL program to ELL who have been
prematurely exit including Special Education ELL after
receiving the I-ELDA results back in May 2015.

Monitoring waived ELL service students.

Monitoring of Exit ELL who met the new criteria for two
years. Offer the re-entry if recommended.
Annual Measurable Achievement
Objectives (AMAO)

AMAO 1: Progress _ Growth in English Language Proficiency.

AMAO 2: Attaining _ Proficiency in English.

AMAO 3: AYP _ Academic Achievement (IA Assessment in
math and reading).

Sanctions on Districts Have Not Made AMAO for Four
Consecutive Years.(including modify curriculum, training,
instruction).
Usage of Funding

Supplement versus Supplant on Title III
Funding.
ENGLISH LEARNERS AND THE CORE
Differentiating between Language Instruction and
Intervention
Review of our learning
• Differences between English learners and
native English speakers
• Language proficiency levels/development
• Different types of English learners
• Conceptual reservoir
• Strengths based approach to education
DMPS goals for ELL instruction
• Strengths-based approach to ELL teaching
• Core belief – every child can learn/ English
learners are just as intelligent and capable as
native English speakers.
• High quality instruction in every classroom
• Increase the rigor of teaching in all classrooms
The DMPS Comprehensive Framework for ELL
Language and Literacy Development
Language Instruction
Educational Program:
ELL instruction aligned with
the general classroom and
Common Core State
Standards.
Sheltered Instruction:
LIEP
SIOP
IELC
MTSS
Content-based instruction
delivered through
sheltered instruction.
Intensive English
Language Centers:
Multi-Tiered System
of Support:
Intensive English literacy and
math instruction for
newcomers.
Every-education decisionmaking framework of
evidence-based practices in
assessment and instruction.
Strengths Based Perspective
in Teaching ELLs
• Considers the “total language proficiency”
of the child
• Plans how to help students demonstrate
what they know and are able to do.
• Core belief – every child can learn/ English
learners are just as intelligent and capable as
native English speakers.
Core instruction for English learners
(Council of the Great City Schools)
Access to
Common
Core
English
Language
Development
Academic
Achievement
for English
learners
Discipline
-specific
Academic
English
Focused
language
study
Realizing the Potential
of RTI: Response to
Intervention for English
Learners
Dr. Janette Klingner
Opportunities to Learn through
Core Instruction
Tier 1:
75-85 %
Tier 2:
ELL
Class
Discrepant
Grade+with true peers.
level
ELA
10-15 %
Tier 3:
5-10 %
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Rothenberg,
C. (2011). Implementing RtI with English Learners. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press
ELL Groups
Core Instruction for English Learners
English
Language
Instruction
Acquisition of
Academic
English
Language
English
Language
Arts
ELL instruction is aligned with ELA because the ELA
Content area more thoroughly supports the
Acquisition of an additional language.
ELL teachers are not Interventionists
• ELL Instructional time:
–Aligned to the common core standards
–On grade-level
–Scaffolded to support learning at their
current language proficiency level
–Aligned to mainstream classroom to
reinforce learning with linguistic scaffolding
Misleading definitions
• Definitions of “language” vs. “foreign language”
• Scheduling influences that lead to
misperceptions
• Seen as support for deficits
• Difficult to identify/recognize process of
language acquisition and development
Comparison of ELL tab/ Intervention tab
Comparison of tasks of ELL teacher and
Interventionist
ELL Teacher
Cultural connections and background
– vocab development
Syntax awareness in English
Interventionists
Targeted literacy skill development
(vocabulary, comprehension, fluency,
phonological awareness, alphabetic principle)
English semantics
Targeted Math skill development
Oral language development
Literacy progress monitoring data
collection (FAST)
Discourse patterns in English
Supports to develop
academic language proficiency
Discipline Specific Academic English
1
2
3
Focused Language Study
4
5
6
How do we strengthen quality of
instruction in all classes?
• Alignment between ELL and classroom
–connections to CCSS
–sequence of instruction
–communication between all teachers
• Extension of language learning strategies in all classroom
contexts.
• ELL and General education teacher professional development
• Continual professional development for all school personnel
Why aren’t my ELs making progress?
• Strengths-based perspective:
– quality of instruction in the main classroom
– quality of instruction in the ELL classroom
– degree of alignment and communication
Moving Forward . . . Beyond the Core
• Directions on how to problem-solve for
English learners
• Implementing MTSS effectively with English
learners
• Enter specific questions/challenges in
“todaysmeet” feed to guide future learning
Supporting Teacher
Growth + Development
Instructional Coach Model
Outcomes for Today
• Outline the roles and responsibilities of
the TLC Instructional Coach.
• Build an understanding of Collaborative
Learning Cycles
Current Reality: Coaching Models in Place
Rationale for Consistency:
When coaching models
are not consistent, it
makes it impossible to
develop system-wide
support structures and
monitor the effectiveness
of our work.
Each circle represents a pie of coach time.
TCL Instructional Coach Model
School
Specific
Support
15%
Individual
Learning
Cycles
25%
Data Cycle
5%
Professional
Development
5%
•
50% of coaching time is spent on activities
related to collaborative learning cycles. This
includes running CLC meetings, co-planning,
classroom support, and debriefing.
•
25% of coaching time is spent on activities
related to individual learning cycles. This
includes ILC meetings, co-planning,
classroom support, and debriefing.
•
15% of coaching time is spent on school
specific support. This is decided by the
principal and could range from hall duty, to
supporting other teachers, to lunch duty.
•
5% of coaching time is spent running data
cycle meetings.
Collaborative •
Learning Cycles
50%
5% of coaching time is spent on
Instructional Coach Professional
Development.
Goals of the Instructional Coaching Program
1. Point teachers toward best practices.
2. Show teachers what good teaching looks like.
3. Help teachers maintain their best performance.
4. Help teachers achieve flow.
5. Help teachers take risks.
Collaborative Learning Cycles at a glance
• Focus on Marzano’s Instructional
Framework and the instructional practices
that best support selected elements
• Intensive cohort-based learning experience
designed to foster collaboration and develop
teacher capacity
• Includes weekly cohort meetings, classroom
support and debriefs.
Review Sample CLC Plan
As you’re reading through the sample plan for a
Collaborative Learning Cycle…
–Identify evidence of a gradual release of responsibility
–Discuss examples of evidence-based reflective practice
–Make connections to current practice and the reflective
teaching cycle discussed by Jan Hoegh + Phil Warrick
Moving Forward with
Standards Referenced Grading
3 Year Plan
Year 1: 2015-2016
Desired Result: Establish levels of rigor in
accordance with the Iowa Common Core
Standards and align instructional practices.
Year 2: 2016-2017
Desired Result: Utilize SRG to effectively
communicate with all stakeholders what
students know and are able to do in a consistent
and valuable manner.
Year 3: 2017-2018
Desired Result: Utilize SRG to effectively
support our exceptional learners and provide
the foundation for a strong MTSS System.
Next Steps
• March 10th Teaching + Learning Meeting:
3 year Implementation Project Plan
• Resources for Review:
Organizational
Updates
Q +A