Derry Township School District Hershey, PA

1. Derry Township School DistrictHershey, PA 2010 - NASP Annual Convention - Chicago David Lillenstein, Ed.D., NCSP dlillenstein@hershey.k12.pa.us 717-531-2277 x5436 Jason Pedersen, Ph.D., NCSP jpedersen@hershey.k12.pa.us 717-531-2277 x5405

2. Who we are… • 3550 Students K-12 --- (1450 Students K-5) • <10% Low income • <11% Special Education • 89% white; 7% Asian; 3% Black or Hispanic • 90+% attend post-secondary school • 3 School Psychologists, 2 F/T Interns, 1 P/T Practicum Intern • 2 Literacy Coaches (K-3, 4-5) • RtII since 2005-2006 • ECC (K-1) (20 Classroom Teachers) • 2 Intervention Specialists and 2 Aides • Primary (2-3) (26 Classroom Teachers) • 2 Intervention Specialist/Reading Specialist • Intermediate (4-5) (24 Classroom Teachers) • 2 Intervention Specialists/Reading Specialist

3. State Assessment – 3rd Grade - Reading

4. State Assessment – 4th Grade - Reading

5. State Assessment – 5th Grade - Reading

6. Derry’s RtII Matrix

7. Derry’s RtII Matrix (cont.)

8. Derry’s Data Management

9. Derry’sTeaming Structures • Intervention Planning Meetings (IPM) • Principal, School Psychologists, Interns, Lit Coaches, Intervention Specialists, Counselors • 4x per year, after each Benchmark assessment • Slopes calculated for grade • 2 point slopes calculated for each student receiving intervention • Review progress by classroom • Plan for intervention groups by tier • Grade Level Teams • Teachers • 4x per year • Set grade level goals • Monitor progress toward goals • Modify curriculum pacing and content to meet goals

10. Derry’s Teaming Structures, cont. • POD (Poring over Data) • Teams of 3-4 Teachers, by grade level • Includes Lit Coaches, Principal, Intervention Specialists • 2 x per month • Review all data and adjust flexible groups • Identify patterns and solutions • Modify interventions • Intervention Team Meetings (ITM) • Includes parent • Additional assessments – CTOPP, TOWRE, etc. • Multi point Slopes and Trends calculated and graphed • Individual goals set

11. Current Reading Programs and Interventions • Core Reading Program: • Kindergarten: Reading Street by Pearson • Grades 1-5: Project Read (Reading Street by Pearson starting in 2010-11) • LETR’s Training modules • Interventions: • Kindergarten: • Differentiated Lessons – Reading Street • Early Reading Intervention (ERI) • Phonological Awareness Training for Reading (PATR) • Project Read Small Group

12. Current Reading Programs and Interventions (cont.) Grades 1-5: • Interventions: • Project Read (small group) • My Sidewalks • Phonics for Reading • Project Read Linguistics • Visualizing & Verbalizing • 6-Minute Solution • Read Naturally • Fluency Boxes • Repeated Readings • Phonological Awareness Training for Reading (PATR)

13. Putting the Dual Discrepancy Framework in Context • In evaluating student progress, regardless of the reason (e.g., tier movement, modify intervention, special education, etc.) the data are examined through a dual discrepancy lens to check: • Level (low skills) • Rate of Improvement/Slope (slow progress)

14. Dual Discrepancy - Level of Performance and…

15. Rate of Improvement (slope)

16. Student vs. Benchmarks

17. Student vs. Grade Level

18. Student vs. Students w IEPs

19. Derry’s SLD Identification • Critical Data • ROI/Slope (Progress Monitoring Data) • Level (Individually administered achievement test) • Record Review (Hx of interventions, etc.) • Performance relative to State Standards • Performance below 10th %ile • Observation • Student • Classroom (fidelity check)

20. 2008/2009 27 Total 20 Eligible 74% hit rate 2009/2010 14 Total 12 Eligible 86% hit rate Derry’s SLD Evaluations(September – February) • Explanation of Difference - • Clear criteria for referral • Clear criteria for ID • Review of performance on State Standards • Use of Slope w relative comparisons • Use of Level w relative comparisons • 10th %ile cut

21. Changing the Core • We examined both the overall level of performance and the amount of growth that we were getting with a balanced literacy approach augmented by Project Read and found that we were not ‘growing’ our students the way that we wanted. • One comparison looked at our Tier 2 Kindergarteners compared to all of Kindergarten. The results were compelling enough for us to then re-examine the core.

22. A Comparison of Level between All Kindergarten Students & Tier 2 Students receiving ERI • Each group’s mean performance on the benchmark assessments was compared

23. Rate of Increase (Slope) Comparison between All Kindergarten Students & Tier 2 Students receiving ERI • The rate of increase was calculated between each group’s mean performance on the benchmark assessments • The ERI group outperformed Kindergarten

24. Conclusion • Our team meetings focus exclusively on the critical literacy and behavioral data to determine whether a student is in need of more (or less) intensive support.