Changing a School Culture

1. Changing a School Culture June Haynes Sandusky City Schools (Ohio)

2. About Me • 28 years Title 1 Reading and First Grade Teacher • 4 years as Literacy Specialist • 1 year as Co-coordinator Reading First/District LS • Part time instructor at collegiate undergrad level • Part time online learning facilitator for e-Learning Ohio • Elementary Certified (1 – 8) • Reading Endorsement (K – 12) • Administrative Curriculum and Instruction • Literacy Specialist Endorsement (K – 12)

3. Add picture of LS endorsement

4. Heard of us? • Sandusky, Ohio – home of Cedar Point Amusement Park

5. However….. • Industry has left – tourist seasonal jobs • Urban flight – 70% rental property • 3,300 students K - 12 47% Caucasian, 17% Multi-racial, 33% Black, 3% Hispanic • 70% free and reduced lunch • Small inner city

6. Before Year 1 No reading program No basals No teacher manuals No books Used 4 Block model No professional development No materials No coaches No instructional leaders

7. Year 1 • Implemented grades K – 3 (Reading First) • District wide –all 7 elementary schools • Core program – must be used • Pacing charts • 90 minutes uninterrupted Reading • No pull-outs, expose all to core curriculum • Measurement tool for data – DIBELS

8. Professional Development • District wide – 2 hours a month • Train the Trainer model • NRP Findings Professional learning goals • Explained the importance • Interpret the research • Apply SBRR • Reflect

9. Middle of the year Started to look at data Began different types of coaching Informal coaching ELLCO Started to provide information on the RTI process

10. “The Cone”

11. Sample Cones

12. End of Year 1 evaluation • Why not 80%? • Core program – weaknesses? • Looked at supplemental materials • Looked at building alignment and models • Began planning for the next year

13. Building Re-alignment for year 2 • 90 minutes as before • 30 minutes intervention grades K – 3 • All children in that grade are re-shuffled and grouped according to need, instruction based on the data • Strategic and intensive 4- 6 to a group for 6 weeks • Classroom teachers/Title/Special Ed/Aides

14. All day May planning • All teachers (K – 3) met for the day • Subs were arranged • Worked out schedules • Specials, 90, 30, Title, Aides, • Consensus was achieved • Everyone had a say • No one left until everyone was happy –no complaints

15. Year 2 • Started hard look at data • Professional Development Differentiation Scaffolding Data RTI process Writing

16. Mid-year • Started DIBELS in 4 – 6 • Realized need for SBRR District-wide Tier 2 materials • Data Boards

17. Picture of board and post it

18. Data boards • Graphic representation of the data • Easy to manipulate, move and digests • Classroom Board (presentation, file folders) • Cone for each BM period • Post-it for each student (color is BM 1 category) • DIBELS score, homeroom teacher, OAT scores, subtests, accuracy rate, intervention teacher

19. Post –It Note (color denotes RTI placement on BM 1) • Teacher OAA score • Student name • BM 1 data BM 2 data • NWF 52 ORF 92 93% A • WRC 14 • ORF 95 Intervention teacher

20. End of year 2 • End of year planning back by popular demand • Added 4 – 6 into the planning • Added Gifted Teacher • Computer schedule • Bathroom schedule • Tier 3 when possible

21. Year 3 • Switched PD to Grade Level Team at buildings using the Pearson Model • Twice a month – minimum 60 minutes each • 45 GLT, 30 content • Did surveys of what individual grades wanted for content focus • Began to use Tier 2 SBRR materials • Began Tier 2 in grades 4- 6 • Error analysis & Progress Monitoring

22. Pearson Model

23. Error Analysis and Progress • Wanted teachers to dig deeper • Look at patterns • Progress monitoring – • Greens – one a month • Yellows – every other week • Reds – once a week Movement – 6 weeks minimum Mini-benchmark in November

24. Error analysis

25. Year 4 • Continued GLTs - need more teacher and principal led rather than Literacy Specialists • Trying to implement Tier 3 and Tier 3 materials • Implement IAT process with the RTI • Looking at Baldrige again • Charts • Student Data folders

26. Year 5 • Grade level teams are in place • RTI is embedded with the IAT process • Refining and fine tuning • Great success in K and 1, grades 2 and 3 are still lacking –

27. Not Always Easy • Teacher buy-in – change is hard • Accountability – not always pretty • LS becomes a “quasi-administrator” • Some just “got off the bus”

28. Steps For Success • Outside PD • Support group internally • Support from “upstairs” • Support from principal • Stepping stone process • Move as you are able to • Use the data! • Candy and chocolate!

31. Contact me • June Haynes • jhaynes@scs-k12.net (school) • jhaynes@bex.net (home) • 419 621 2838 (office) • 419 271 5296 (cell) • Sandusky Board of Education • 407 Decatur St • Sandusky, Ohio 44870

32. Sources Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation ELLCO http://ccf.edc.org/provdev/ellcoaspwww Florida Center for Reading Research www.fcrr.org DIBELS www.dibels.org Pearson Learning Team Model http://www.pearsoned.com/ .