Transcript Ensuring Success for Every Reader

Ensuring Success for
Every Reader
Hutchinson School District
Park Elementary (grades 2 – 5)
West Elementary (grades K-1)
RtI Implementation Progress
Summary
Sept. 2008
Response to Intervention

RtI is the practice of providing high-quality
core instruction and when needed,
interventions matched to student needs.
Learning rate and level of performance are
examined over time to make important
instructional decisions.
The Three Essential Questions



What do we want each student to learn?
How are we going to know when each
student has learned it?
How will we respond when a student
experiences difficulty in learning?
Response to Intervention




Quality core curriculum (Tier 1 –80%)
Small group interventions (Tier 2—15%)
Individual interventions (Tier 3—5%)
*These instructional services are paired with
formative assessment to inform instructional
decisions.
Fall 2006




Too many students were more than 1 grade level behind their
peers in reading achievement
Park Title 1 staff supported identified Title 1 students in
classrooms during guided reading and math work time
Classroom teachers in 2nd year of implementing a team effort to
differentiate instruction called Team Time
Park teachers referred student having difficulty to Student
Intervention Team (SIT) for suggestions and interventions; after
2 six-week interventions, could refer to Child Study Team for
SPED assessment if no progress
Fall 2006:
Frustrations Leading to Change




The extra support students received depended on
experience of their teacher—not consistent from
classroom to classroom
SIT process was back-logged and time was lost in
trying to help students
Some students needing extra help did not qualify for
SPED because there was not a big enough gap
between their ability and their achievement level
Uncertainty of how to best assist struggling readers
Winter 2007

Park piloted a pull-out program for select
struggling readers, most of whom had not
qualified for SPED
–
–
Taught by Title 1 staff using resources from
SPED (Horizons)
In addition to Title 1 support in the classroom
Spring/Summer 2007





**Park students receiving additional pull-out reading support
had exciting gains on their NWEA reading scores
Park applied for AmeriCorps grant to obtain a literacy
coordinator
Park received grant and hired literacy coordinator
Park Assistant Principal and Title 1 Coordinator attended
AmeriCorps training
In addition to the new AmeriCorps program, Park planned to
implement AmeriCorps suggested Oral Reading Fluency
benchmarking for all students and recommended reading
interventions for lowest Title 1 students in the fall
Fall 2007

Fall Oral Reading Fluency assessment
–
–
–
–
Was administered to all Park students by Title 1 staff during
the first week of school
Scores were entered into an Excel spreadsheet along with
NWEA and other achievement data
Students were identified for extra support outside of core
curriculum for both the AmeriCorps and Title 1 programs
Intervention times were scheduled during Team Time
and/or science-social time
Fall 2007



Trained Title 1 staff on Benchmark assessment and
Interventions through AmeriCorps Master Coach and
Literacy Coordinator
Began to train teachers on various interventions and
how to interpret progress charts (Aimsweb) at late
starts and staff development days
**We did not wait until we had everything figured
out—we jumped in and learned by doing
Fall 2007

Began monthly grade level data meetings
–
–
–
Examined Excel spreadsheets to identify students
Discussed how students were responding to
interventions based on weekly progress
monitoring and Aimsweb chart
Determined who would continue with intervention
support, who could exit, and who could take their
place
Winter 2008





Park applied for MN RTI Center coaching grant and
was among those schools selected for program
Park created an RtI Team
Park Assistant Principal began weekly
teleconference meetings with RtI cohort to learn
implementation strategies and create an intervention
inventory for Park
Winter ORF Benchmarks occurred in Jan. and new
data was added to the Excel spreadsheets
Began to analyze components of Park’s core
curriculum
Spring 2008





Park applied for and received grant to continue with
AmeriCorps Literacy Coordinator—2 members
West Elementary (K – 1) applied for and received
grant to have Literacy Coordinator—2 members
Conducted Spring ORF Benchmark Assessment at
Park
Park achievement data (NWEA, ORF, MCAII)
showed exciting gains for many struggling students
**District budget allocated funds for Intervention
Specialist K – 5 position (SPED funds)
Summer 2008






West and Park hired AmeriCorps Literacy Coordinators
27 Park staff members attended a week-long book study of
Vaughn’s Research-Based Practices for Effective Reading
Instruction K – 3 to improve collective capacity of staff to teach
core curriculum
West Principal and lead teacher attended AmeriCorps training
Park RtI Team members attended RtI Training
K-5 Intervention Specialist attended Problem-Solving Training
Trained West Title 1 staff on Letter Naming Fluency, Letter
Sound Fluency, and Nonsense Word Fluency Benchmark
Assessments
Fall 2008




Benchmarked all students K – 5
Continued to examine data to inform instructional
placements (Tier 1, 2, & 3)
Trained teachers on research-based reading
interventions and on which best suits each child’s
needs
Created schedules so SPED LD students remained
in the classroom during core instruction and were
pulled for additional support at another time in the
day
Fall 2008


Implemented Problem-Solving Model to meld
the old and new intervention systems at Park
Began a District Literacy Leadership Team to
guide K – 12 Literacy Curriculum, Instruction,
& Assessment
What RtI Looks Like At Park



Classroom teachers examine student achievement data for
their students at the beginning of the year—DRA, NWEA,
Scholastic Reading Inventory Lexile, MCAII, etc.
Whole class is assessed for ORF by Title 1 staff in 15 minutes
3 times a year for benchmark scores
Classroom teachers take the time to complete a “chutes and
ladders” chart to sort students according to ORF scores into 3
tiers after each benchmarking period
Teachers determine student needs in whole grade level and
communicate with Title 1 Coordinator and Intervention
Specialist about a time to intervene with Tier 2 & 3 students
from their classroom
Grade:
Target:
Fall
Winter
Spring
Benchmark
Benchmark
Benchmark
Strategic
Strategic
Strategic
Intensive
Intensive
Intensive
Total
Enrollment:
____
Goal:
What RtI Looks Like at Park



Tier 2 & 3 students are pulled out for 1:1, 1:2
or small group intensive help with scripted
interventions
Intervention Inventory: evidence-based!
Graph progress with Aimsweb program
This is a rather poor copy of an Aimsweb graph
showing the student’s starting point, trend line,
progress monitoring points, and intervention lines.
What RtI Looks Like at Park

Success stories:
–
student assessed for SPED end of 3rd grade,
DNQ, did not meet standard on MCAII; in 4th
grade was part of the pilot group for interventions
but did not meet the standard on MCAII; in 5th
grade received interventions again and met the
standard—nearly exceeded the standard
What RtI Looks Like at Park

Some data from last year’s 2nd graders
(ORF benchmark 43 / 90)
–
–
–
–
Fall ORF
20 Spring ORF
Fall NWEA 33% Spring NWEA
74
54%
Fall ORF
14
Fall NWEA 3%
61
31%
WCM
Spring ORF
Spring NWEA
What RtI Looks Like at Park

Some data from last year’s 3rd graders:
(ORF benchmark 70 / 109)
–
–
Fall ORF
31 Spring ORF
Fall NWEA 14% Spring NWEA
WCM

–
–
**passed the MCAII!
Fall ORF
34 Spring ORF
Fall NWEA 29% Spring NWEA

109
19%
**passed the MCAII!
80
40%
What RtI Looks Like at Park

Some data from last year’s 4th graders:
(ORF benchmark 95 / 127)
–
–
Fall ORF
48
Fall NWEA 8%
WCM

–
–
88
34%
**passed the MCAII—exceeded the standard!
Fall ORF
45
Fall NWEA 9%

Spring ORF
Spring NWEA
Spring ORF
Spring NWEA
84
25%
**did not pass MCAII (DNQ for SPED in 3rd grade)
What RtI Looks Like At Park

Teachers:
–
–
–
–
Recognize team effort in helping struggling readers—not me
alone!
Communicate with Title 1 staff who are working with their students
whenever possible
Attend monthly grade level data meetings to examine student
progress
Communicate with parents to explain components of the RtI
system and how they apply to their child(ren)
–
Aimsweb charts were very helpful to visualize the progress
–
Attend staff development opportunities to learn research-based
interventions that apply to their students
What RtI Looks Like At West




Classroom teachers examine student achievement
data at the beginning of the year—DRA, pre-school
screening, etc.
New benchmark assessments for whole class
completed15 minutes
Examine data and determine direction for
improvement
Learn by doing! with help from the experiences of
the Park staff
Future Goals







Keep working toward a comprehensive K – 5 RtI
system to ensure that all students learn to read
successfully (change the culture of our schools!)
Move RtI efforts into the upper grades (some staff
attended training summer 2008)
Improve core reading curriculum resources K – 5
Continue to improve collective capacity of staff to
effectively teach reading—the science of teaching!
Meld the new Problem-Solving model into existing
system for SPED identification
Math???
Behavior???
Thank You!

If you have questions about anything in this
powerpoint, please feel free to e-mail your
questions/comments to
–
–
–
–
Lori VanderHeiden, Assistant Principal
Park Elementary, ISD#423
Hutchinson, MN
[email protected]