Ensuring Success for Every Reader

1. Ensuring Success for Every Reader Hutchinson School District Park Elementary (grades 2 – 5) West Elementary (grades K-1) RtI Implementation Progress Summary Sept. 2008

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Grade: Target: Goal: Fall Winter Spring Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark Strategic Strategic Strategic Intensive Intensive Intensive Total ____ Enrollment:

19. 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

20. This is a rather poor copy of an Aimsweb graph showing the student’s starting point, trend line, progress monitoring points, and intervention lines.

21. 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

22. What RtI Looks Like at Park • Some data from last year’s 2nd graders (ORF benchmark 43 / 90) • Fall ORF 20WCM Spring ORF 74 • Fall NWEA 33% Spring NWEA 54% • Fall ORF 14 Spring ORF 61 • Fall NWEA 3% Spring NWEA 31%

23. What RtI Looks Like at Park • Some data from last year’s 3rd graders: (ORF benchmark 70 / 109) • Fall ORF 31WCM Spring ORF 109 • Fall NWEA 14% Spring NWEA 19% • **passed the MCAII! • Fall ORF 34 Spring ORF 80 • Fall NWEA 29% Spring NWEA 40% • **passed the MCAII!

24. What RtI Looks Like at Park • Some data from last year’s 4th graders: (ORF benchmark 95 / 127) • Fall ORF 48WCM Spring ORF 88 • Fall NWEA 8% Spring NWEA 34% • **passed the MCAII—exceeded the standard! • Fall ORF 45 Spring ORF 84 • Fall NWEA 9% Spring NWEA 25% • **did not pass MCAII (DNQ for SPED in 3rd grade)

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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???

28. 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 • loriv@hutch.k12.mn.us