Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Gloversville Enlarged School District, Gloversville, NY
– Located in Fulton County approximately 50 miles northwest of Albany, NY.
– Considered by NYS as a rural district with high student needs.
– Approx. 3500 students Pre-K through 12– 65% of students are receiving free/reduced
lunch– 18.7% of students have an IEP
Boulevard Elementary SchoolGloversville, NY
RTI plan
2006-2007
All students involved in core curriculum program\whole group overview
Small group station work/students work independently or with TA on activities that support Fab 5 and core program
Small group teacher station modified according to groups needs/ same lesson different delivery based on need.
Boulevard Elementary Regular Classroom Instruction
AIS intervention periodStruggling students—small group instruction by
AIS outside classroom.Emergent students receive
intervention from classroom teacher
Core debriefing/ all students
On-track students are challenged
through classroom activities designed
by teacher. Struggling students—assessed by deficit skills, provided
additional 30 minutes skills based instruction.
RTI Approach
AIS pullout for strugglers and low emergent students as well as Extended Day opportunity
Accelerated Growth
Slow Growth or No Growth
Provide Small GroupSpecialized SkillInstruction in addition to regular AIS time as well as Extended Day
Slow Growth or No Growth
Accelerated Growth
Regular Classroom Instruction
Provide One-to-OneSpecialized Instruction
Accelerated Growth
Slow Growth or No Growth
LD ? –provide continued instruction
(Adapted from Scanlon 2006)
Boulevard’s Academic
Intervention Services
Timeline for Boulevard Intervention K – 3
Student Monitoring Month action Staff involved
On-goingprogress monitoring
K -2every five days for
(struggling) intensiveonce a month for (emergent)
strategic
3rd GradeEvery 10 lessons for
(struggling) intensiveOnce a month for
(emergent) strategic
June Form class lists based on Benchmarks/Terra Nova
Form AIS lists using Benchmark scores
Classroom teachersCoaches
AIS providers, Principal
September Begin AIS supportBenchmark students
Regroup AIS based on first BenchmarkSend home Benchmark scores notifying parents
of student’s level
AIS providersClassroom teachers
(for strategic)AIS providers, coaches
October review progress monitoring data, adjust AIS groups according to data
AIS providers, coaches, principal
November review progress monitoring data, adjust AIS groups according to data
provide more in-depth assessment for students making insufficient progress
AIS providers, coaches
On-goingProgress
Monitoring
K -2every fifth day of
instruction for (struggling)
intensive10 Days for
(emergent) strategic
3rd GradeEvery 10 lessons
for intensiveOnce a month for
strategicPre-test and post-
test skill based intervention groups every
10 – 15 days of lessons.
******** On Track Students
Assessed every 2 Months
December review progress monitoring data, adjust AIS groups according to data
Using assessment provide more intensive intervention
(phonics skill groups, fluency etc.)
AIS providers, coaches, Principal
January Administer 2nd benchmarkRegroup students for AIS according to
data adjust skills groups as indicated by post test
dataSend home Benchmark scores notifying parents
of student’s level
Classroom teachers, AIS providers, coaches
February review progress monitoring data, adjust AIS groups according to data
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test data
AIS providers, coaches,Principal
March review progress monitoring data, adjust AIS groups according to data
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test data
AIS providers, coaches
April review progress monitoring data, adjust AIS groups according to data
adjust skills groups as indicated by post test data
AIS providers, coaches,Principal
May Administer 3rd benchmarkRegroup students according to data for AISadjust skills groups as indicated by post test
data
Classroom teachers, AIS providers, coaches
June Use benchmark 3 data and Terra Novas to form class lists
and establish preliminary AIS groups for fallDesignate students qualifying for summer
school.Send home benchmark reports and notification
of summer school participation.
Classroom teachers, AIS providers, coaches
Data Analysis Summary SheetWe need to look for patterns within tests and between tests, to help inform corrective instruction. Critical information can be collected through running records, listening to the student think aloud as they arrive at answers, sampling vocabulary knowledge within passages, listing type of errors, etc. Therefore, please record data and error analysis from such measures as: DIBELS tests, the Phonological Awareness Test, the Gray Oral Reading Test, the PPVT, the Woodcock-Johnson III, Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Test, McGraw Hill Unit tests, Voyager Checkpoint testing, teacher-made tests, etc.
Test Results (e.g., Standard Scores) Error Analysis Notes
70
5547
0102030405060708090
100
7/03-6/04 7/04-6/05 7/05-6/06
Referrals
Placements
Non-Disabled
District K-12 Classification Data for Special Education
Boulevard ElementarySpecial Education K - 5
ResourceRoom support
Replacementclassroom
Special Classroom12:1:1
40 minutes per dayclassroom
Materials:Core program
intervention
Modified 3rd grade McGraw-Hill
Leveled books from core
45 minutes per dayStudents also receive
40 minutes resource room
90 minute reading block daily within
classroom
Horizons, Reasoning & Writing, Mastery Reading Plus
Students are benchmarked 3 times per year at grade level, progressed monitored every 10 days at instructional level.
All Special Ed students receive 30 min. of AIS
daily by Reading Specialist
NASDSENovember 14, 2006
Margaret McGlincheyKim St. Martin
This document was produced and distributed through an IDEA Mandated Activities Project for Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) awarded by the Michigan Department of Education. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Michigan Department of Education, the Michigan State Board of Education, or the U.S. Department of Education, and no endorsement is inferred. This document is in the public domain and may be copied for further distribution when proper credit is given. For further information or inquiries about this project, contact the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
End of Year goal is for the student to demonstrate this skill at 35 phonemes per minute-grey area
Now you see this student in the context of the whole class. Does it make a difference in how
you think about this student?
• Yes
• No
Same building different teacher
Mission Statement
To develop support systems and sustained implementation of a data-driven, problem solving model in elementary schools to help students become better readers with social skills necessary for success.
Three Important Themes
• Create systems, not just programs, to support each and all students
• Earlier rather than later
• Evidence, not opinion
Participating Schools
2004 Schools (21)
2005 Schools (31)
2006 Schools (50)
Reaching over 40,000 students and 2,600 teachers and administrators in 102 schools and 17 ISDs!
School-Wide Support Systems for Student Success
ReadingBehavior
Universal InterventionCore Instruction, all studentsPreventive
Targeted InterventionSupplemental, somestudents, reduce risk
Intensive Intervention Individualized, functional assessment, highly specific
80%
7-15%
1-5%
Percent of Students at DIBELS Benchmark Level: Cohort 1
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Kdg First Second ThirdGrade Level
2003-20042004-20052005-2006
Percent of Students at DIBELS Intensive Level: Cohort 1
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Kdg First Second ThirdGrade Level
2003-20042004-20052005-2006
Comstock East ElementaryAn Exemplar of MiBLSi
Year 1Behavior• Leadership team received training in
creating a positive behavior support system•February~April: •3-5 school-wide behavior expectations •school-wide teaching matrix •major vs. minor behavior•consequences•office referral form
Behavior Continued…
Summer 2004: teaching plans for non-classroom settings
-hallway-bathroom-playground-bus-cafeteria-library media center-assembly
Year 1Literacy• DIBELS training was provided for all
K-5 staff– Expectations for DIBELS testing:
Classroom teachers had a leadership role in all DIBELS assessments.
– Progress monitoring expectations•Intensive students-weekly•Strategic students-monthly
Literacy Continued…
• Data Analysis– Kindergarten retention data was
analyzed and discussed. Reading Mastery I in grades K~1 was implemented
– Child Study data analyzed: 100% of the referrals cited reading as a major concern.
Year 2• Behavior
– August: school wide behavior expectations taught directly and formally, implemented acknowledgment/reward system, SWIS was used to monitor referral data
– December: staff met to discuss regaining momentum for behavior tickets, classroom incentives were established to increase the number of tickets given.
Behavior Continued…
Behavior Trainings:• Fall-Leadership team attended training on
how to address tier 1 & 2 behaviors (check-in/check-out system, SWIS data analysis training)
• Winter-Leadership team received intensive behavior training to address tier 3 behaviors (functional behavior assessments, behavior intervention plans, wrap-arounds)
Behavior Continued…
Implementation of Tier 2~Teir 3 Systems• Behavior Intervention Team (B.I.T)
– Students receiving three major office referrals were discussed at the B.I.T.
– Goal was to establish a behavior intervention plan for students with input from teachers, parents, administrators, and personnel having behavioral expertise.
– Check-in/Check-out person was identified and data collection system was established to determine effectiveness of the plan
Year 2Literacy• 90-30 (K~5)
– 90 minutes of uninterrupted language arts
– 30 minutes of targeted reading support by reading personnel.•The most intensive students working
with trained reading personnel.•Students identified using
DIBELS/classroom assessment data•Flexible grouping
Literacy Continued…• 90-30-30 (K~1)
– All kindergarten and first grade students received an additional 30 minutes of intensive reading support using Reading Mastery I to address phonemic awareness and alphabetic principle.
– All students received 150 minutes of daily language arts instruction.
– Supplemental programs became a part of the core instruction to fill gaps.
Literacy Continued
– Leadership team received training on• analysis of core reading program• effectiveness of intervention
programs •grade level meeting structure• application of data based decision
making •action planning
Literacy Continued…Grade Level Meetings• The child study team changed from problem
solving for one student, to groups of students within a grade level.
• Grade level teachers, principal, school psychologist, reading personnel
• 1st Meeting: review of core program and critical skills necessary for each grade level
• Subsequent Meetings: – student progress monitoring data – data based decision making – Interventions – resources
Year 3• Behavior
– School Improvement Behavior Committee reviewed 2004-2005 SWIS data and identified months having highest referral counts.
– Incentives were communicated to students via school-wide assemblies. (dessert buffet, pizza party, ice cream social)
– Second Step (social skills curriculum) was being taught school-wide.
Year 3Literacy• 90-30-30 (K~5)
– 90 minutes of core instruction for all students
– 30 minutes of targeted reading for intensive and lower strategic students• Sound Partners, Corrective Reading, Road to the
Code
– 30 minutes of intensive support for lowest students • Reading Mastery I & II, Teacher-Directed PALS,
Corrective Reading, Read Naturally, Rewards
Percent at Benchmark Range Second Grade: School to District
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2003-2004 2005-2006 2003-2004 2005-2006
Comstock East Other District Schools
Comstock East 2003-2004
Comstock East 2005-2006
Other District Schools 2003-2004Other District Schools 2005-2006
Percent at Intensive Range Second Grade: School to District
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2003-2004 2005-2006 2003-2004 2005-2006
Comstock East Other District Schools
Comstock East 2003-2004
Comstock East 2005-2006
Other District Schools 2003-2004Other District Schools 2005-2006
Referrals Per Year Per 100 Students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004-2005 2005-2006
Putting the Pieces Together
MiBLSi provided problem solving framework : • to implement a culture of collaboration between
general education and special education staff • for frequent assessment of student performance• to allow staff common planning time, grade level
meetings, and staff meetings to address student’s needs and adjust instruction accordingly
All of these practices are in accordance with NCLB, IDEA 2004 and are aligned with a Response to Intervention model
