Upload
buikhuong
View
237
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MarshallElementarySchoolandMarshallEarlyChildhoodCenterMarshallSchoolDistrict
WisconsinRtICenterDemonstration Site
Elementary Reading
(Fall2011–Spring2013)
2
TableofContentsIntroduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Goal of the Demonstration Sites Project ......................................................................................... 3
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Methods and Self‐Assessment Tools ............................................................................................................ 4
School‐wide Implementation Review .............................................................................................. 4
RtI Essential Components Integrity Rubric ...................................................................................... 4
Additional Data ................................................................................................................................ 4
Results Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 5
What was the status of RtI implementation when the partnership began? ................................... 5
What have we learned from the implementation assessment tools? ............................................ 6
What are the lessons learned and what have we accomplished so far? ......................................... 9
Where are we going in the future? ................................................................................................ 10
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 10
Contributors ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Wisconsin RtI Center ...................................................................................................................... 10
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction ................................................................................. 10
National Center on Response to Intervention ............................................................................... 10
School Leadership Teams ............................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Wisconsin RtI framework for reading for Marshall demonstration sites ............................... 12
Appendix B: RtI trainings and professional development activities 2011–13 ............................................ 14
3
IntroductionThe Wisconsin Response to Intervention (RtI) Center demonstration sites project joins schools in
partnership with the Wisconsin RtI Center, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), and
the National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRtI) to highlight the implementation of the
Wisconsin RtI framework. The schools chosen were already implementing RtI; this project aligns their RtI
implementation specifically with the Wisconsin RtI framework and evaluates the outcomes. The first
year of this project included six elementary schools focusing their current RtI implementation efforts on
reading. Through this partnership, the demonstration schools received individualized support and
technical assistance (training, coaching, and tools) to encourage better alignment to the Wisconsin RtI
framework and to evaluate their individual implementation practices.
GoaloftheDemonstrationSitesProjectThe goal of the demonstration sites project is to provide an example of how the Wisconsin RtI
framework works within a local context and to provide a snapshot of a collaborative implementation
process. Specifically, project goals include the following:
Alignment to Wisconsin RtI framework: The demonstration sites exemplify alignment of
current RtI implementation to the Wisconsin RtI framework.
Demonstration of Wisconsin RtI implementation and outcomes: Schools demonstrate practices
and outcomes as a result of implementing the Wisconsin RtI framework.
Gather results of the Wisconsin RtI Center’s technical assistance: The public aspect of the
project allows observers to monitor the hands‐on guidance provided by the Wisconsin RtI
Center (e.g., training sessions, resources, tools).
Recognition of successful schools: This project provides statewide and regional recognition to
the demonstration schools as implementers of the Wisconsin RtI framework.
PurposeThe purpose of this report is to provide a summary of each demonstration school using qualitative and
quantitative data sources that were systematically collected fall 2011 through spring 2013. This report
provides a snapshot of RtI implementation and collaboration efforts of the demonstration schools and
answers the following questions:
What was the status of RtI implementation at each of the schools when the partnership began?
What have we learned from the implementation assessment tools?
What are the lessons learned and what have we accomplished so far?
Where are we going in the future?
This report tells the story of the complexities and the rewards of implementation of the Wisconsin RtI
framework for reading at each level of support (universal, selected, and intensive). Additionally, the
report provides a resource for those schools throughout Wisconsin seeking examples of descriptors for
multi‐level systems of support for reading. The Wisconsin RtI Center staff will use this report and the
lessons learned throughout the partnership to improve technical assistance and trainings to all schools
in Wisconsin in order to continue to provide all students with the support they need to succeed.
4
MethodsandSelf‐AssessmentToolsThrough this partnership, each demonstration school completed two implementation assessments—the
School‐wide Implementation Review (SIR) and the RtI Essential Components Integrity Rubric—in order
to determine current strengths and areas of need. The completion of both assessments were facilitated
and supported by staff of the Wisconsin RtI Center.
School‐wideImplementationReviewThe SIR is a self‐assessment built around the Wisconsin RtI framework. Wisconsin RtI Center staff
developed the SIR to operationalize essential elements of the Wisconsin RtI framework into actionable
items, to help school teams localize Wisconsin RtI, and to provide schools with an instrument to monitor
annual progress toward full RtI implementation. The SIR includes assessment questions for each level of
support (universal, selected, and intensive) on the following domains: high quality instruction, balanced
assessment, collaboration, and leadership and organizational structure. The SIR is designed to be
completed at least once a year during the school’s annual planning process.
RtIEssentialComponentsIntegrityRubricBecause of the collaboration with NCRtI, the demonstration sites project also required the use of the RtI
Essential Components Integrity Rubric, developed and piloted by NCRtI. This rubric aligns with the
essential components of RtI from a national lens. Representatives from NCRtI, the Wisconsin RtI Center,
and DPI collected information about school‐level implementation through interviews with school
personnel, observations, and document review. Unlike the self‐assessment system of the SIR, ratings on
each domain of the rubric were determined by the interviewers based on demonstrable evidence for
each item; in other words, ratings were achieved not through consensus of the school team as with the
SIR, but by evaluating information gathered via the interview process. Because of this, schools may
receive different ratings for similar items on the SIR and on the rubric.
The rubric included the following domains: screening, multi‐level prevention/intervention systems,
progress monitoring, data‐based decision making, and overarching factors.
AdditionalDataAdditional data was obtained from several other activities/events.
OnsitesessionsThe Wisconsin RtI Center’s regional technical assistant coordinators (regional TAC) provided increased
individualized trainings and/or onsite support to each of the demonstration sites. Refer to appendix B
for a specific listing of demonstration site technical assistance and professional development.
NetworkingeventsCenter staff facilitated two structured RtI mapping sessions. The mapping process allowed each
demonstration site team to articulate and define those practices and resources in place at each level of
support (universal, selective, and intensive). The mapping template allows for consistent
communications regarding a school’s practices and resources and assists in determining those RtI
components that are established and those still needing implementation. The demonstration site teams
5
also participated in a facilitated session that included roundtable discussions regarding topics of high
interest such as coaching, culture, and screening.
Table 1. Marshall demonstration sites RtI mapping session dates
Universal level February 6, 2012
Selective and intensive levels February 22, 2012
Roundtable networking by topic September 17, 2012
LocalassessmentdataandinterviewsEach demonstration site was asked to share three key pieces of data with the Wisconsin RtI Center: local
report card data, screening process data, and intervention participation data. Although this data was
gathered, it is not presented in this report. The process of data collection and student‐level outcome
data was an area of increasing need for all demonstration site, and further discussion around how to
increase their capacities is needed before formal analysis of data can be completed.
InterviewswithregionalTACSRegional TACS were interviewed in February 2013 to summarize their experience with the
demonstration site project. Questions were tailored around the four purpose questions. The interviews
were recorded, and excerpts are included in this report to augment other data sources.
ResultsSummary
WhatwasthestatusofRtIimplementationwhenthepartnershipbegan?The Marshall Elementary School and Marshall Early Childhood Center began implementing RtI just over
10 years ago, one of the longest times of RtI implementation among the sites in the project. According
to Heidi Erstad, Wisconsin RtI Center regional TAC, these Marshall schools have a reputation for RtI and
have hosted monthly school visits, including presentations by the superintendent, principal, and
classroom visits during which schools can see Marshall’s RtI implementation first hand.
The Marshall sites have been sharing their successes
during presentations at statewide conferences for years.
“They had a number of practices and collaborative pieces
already in place before this partnership began,” Erstad
said.
SchoolDemographics
The Marshall demonstration sites include the Marshall
Early Childhood Center (four‐year‐old kindergarten
through second grade) and Marshall Elementary School
“Throughout the demonstration site
partnership the Marshall schools have
been wonderful about sharing pieces,
being open about questions that they
have, exploring pieces together, and
speaking candidly about what they
have and what they don’t have in
place.”—Heidi Erstad, Regional TAC
6
(third through sixth grade) located in the Marshall School District, a rural community in CESA 2 in the
southern part of the state.
Table 2. 2011–12 Marshall Early Childhood Center and Marshall Elementary School demographics combined compared to Wisconsin1
Total elementary enrollment
Female Students race
(white)
Students with disabilities
Economically disadvantaged
English proficient
Marshall EC‐EL 684 45% 75% 10% 36% 84%
Wisconsin (elementary)
436,917 48% 71% 14% 45% 93%
12011–12 WINSS data
Whathavewelearnedfromtheimplementationassessmenttools?Both Marshall Elementary and Marshall Early Childhood Center completed baseline SIRs on December
22, 2011. It is recommended that the SIR be completed once a year during the annual planning session;
Marshall Elementary and Marshall Early Childhood Center are due to retake the SIR in early 2013.
Both Marshall Early Childhood Center (average: 2.92) and Marshall Elementary (average: 3.00) had
higher overall average scores on the SIR as compared to the state overall (average: 2.13). Leadership and
organizational structure, balanced assessment at the universal level, and high quality instruction at the
universal level were the three highest scored domains for both schools. Family engagement and
culturally responsive practices were the lowest scored domains.
7
Figure 1.Baseline Marshall Early Childhood Center SIR (reading) implementation compared to state averages for all schools completing the SIR in 2012 (N = 482)
Figure 2. Baseline Marshall Elementary SIR (reading) implementation compared to state averages for all schools completing the SIR in 2012 (N = 482)
8
Table 3. Marshall Elementary and Marshall Early Childhood Center baseline SIR results
Marshall Elementary Marshall Early Childhood Center
Wisconsin
Date last completed
December 22, 2011 December 22, 2011 2012 average (N=482)
Essential element – current level of implementation
Overall Initial implementation Initial implementation Infrastructure
High quality instruction
Initial implementation Initial implementation Infrastructure
Balanced assessment
Full implementation Full implementation Initial implementation
Collaboration Initial implementation Initial implementation Infrastructure
Leadership and organizational structures
Full implementation Initial implementation Infrastructure
Further analysis – current level of implementation
Universal level of support
Full implementation Initial implementation Infrastructure
Selected and intensive levels of support
Initial implementation Full implementation Infrastructure
Culturally responsive practices
Not in place Purpose building Infrastructure
Family engagement
Initial implementation Full implementation Infrastructure
In addition to the Wisconsin RtI Center’s SIR, schools were also evaluated on RtI implementation with
the NCRtI’s pilot RtI Essential Components Integrity Rubric. Schools received a rating based on
demonstrable evidence for several items shared during the interview process. The Marshall
demonstration sites had evidence of medium implementation on all five domain categories with an
overall score of 3.68. The lowest assessed domain was overarching factors (average=3.00) and the
highest assessed domains were screening (average=4.50) and progress monitoring (average=4.50).
9
Table 4. RtI Essential Components Integrity Rubric scores for Marshall Elementary1
RtI Essential Components Integrity Rubric domain Limited evidence (1.00‐2.99)
Medium evidence (3.00‐4.99)
Strong evidence(5.00)
Screening The RtI framework accurately identifies students who are at risk of poor learning outcomes or challenging behaviors
4.50
Multi‐level prevention/intervention systems The framework includes a school‐wide, multi‐level system for preventing school failure
3.63
Progress monitoring Ongoing and frequent monitoring of progress quantifies rates of improvement and informs instructional practice and the development of individualized programs.
4.50
Data‐based decision making Data‐based decision making processes are used to inform instruction, movement within the multi‐level system, and disability identification.
4.00
Overarching factors Factors that relate to the entire RtI framework
3.00
Overall score 3.68 1 Rubric is based out of a total score of five points.
Whatarethelessonslearnedandwhathaveweaccomplishedsofar?According to Johnson, the Marshall demonstration sites “recognized that the universal level of support
needed to be strong in order to continue to support all students.” They have a “very impressive system
of support in place for kids who are struggling and are
continually working on how they are structuring their support
system for kids who are above benchmark.”
More specifically the Marshall schools completed the
following activities to further implement their multi‐level
system of supports for reading:
focused on continuous improvement across all levels
of support
understood and used multiple academic screening
tools throughout the year
attended professional development opportunities to strengthen culturally responsive practices
Additional training and professional development undertaken as part of the demonstration sites project
are included in appendix B.
“[The Marshall sites are] a small
district and they are very resourceful,
despite the fact that they do not have
bountiful resources coming to them.
They are able to beautifully integrate
the whole Wisconsin RtI framework
and make it work for them.”— Lynn
Johnson, Regional TAC
10
The Marshall demonstration sites identified the following as
good practices that they currently have in place:
effectively allocating resources in a small district
maintaining a system of collaborative schedules that
allow focused conversations between administrators
and each teacher every week about reading
arranging intervention blocks with flexible scheduling
involving the regional TAC in school‐level discussion
with the leadership team to provide better, more useful resources
Wherearewegoinginthefuture?Marshall demonstration sites identified the following as future/continued areas of need:
completing the SIR during the annual action planning process in 2012–13
increasing awareness, knowledge, and accessibility of culturally responsive practices
providing more intensive levels of high quality instruction and intervention
continuing discussions around the use of data‐based decision making to collect student‐level
data for use with grade‐level teams and building‐level problem‐solving teams
ConclusionOverall, the Marshall demonstration sites have shown a high level of success with the integration of the
Wisconsin RtI framework. Their desire for continuous improvement, learning, and sustained
partnerships will encourage continued success in the future.
Contributors
WisconsinRtICenterJennifer Evertsen, Research and Evaluation Coordinator Melissa Marks, Evaluation and Research Assistant Kathy Ryder, Director Alan Schnebly, Research and Evaluation Coordinator Dan Seaman, Regional Technical Assistance Coordinator Heidi Thuli, Academic Coordinator Katie Venit, Communication Coordinator
WisconsinDepartmentofPublicInstructionJulia Hartwig, School Administration Consultant
NationalCenteronResponsetoInterventionWinsome Waite, Senior Technical Assistance Provider
“The thoroughness and thoughtfulness
of the way they approached the
implementation of the Wisconsin RtI
framework highlighted the fact that
they have the best interest of the kids
in mind in everything that they do.”—
Lynn Johnson, Regional TAC
11
SchoolLeadershipTeams
MarshallElementarySchoolandMarshallEarlyLearningCenterMary Jo Ziegler, Director of Instruction Barb Johnson, Principal Chris Sadler, Principal TJ Hansen, School Social Worker Laura Landers, TAG Coordinator/Instructional Coach Marci Olson, Bilingual Teacher Sara Kerwin, Intervention Specialist Jackie Motl, Title I Karan Bliske, First Grade Becky McKenney, Kindergarten Julie Schmitz, Elementary Reading Jamie Orval, Intervention Specialist Amy Boyd, Intervention Specialist Laura Buhr, Bilingual Teacher Ruth Schaap, Second Grade Darlene Crombie, Ffith Grade Karen Murphree, Third Grade Teacher Amanda Price, Fourth Grade
12
AppendixA:WisconsinRtIframeworkforreadingforMarshalldemonstrationsites3General school information
Early childhood center/elementary school
Grade levels: 4K–2/3–6
Student population: 684
Minority students: 25%
Students with disabilities: 10%
Economically disadvantaged: 36%
Limited English proficient: 16%
Location (description): CESA 2 (rural‐fringe)
Purpose and scope of framework
Reading: 4K‐6
Length of implementation Over 10 years (reading)
Screening tools within a comprehensive process
Screening three times per year:
K–6: Fountas‐Pinnell Benchmark
3–6: Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
3–6: MAZE
K–2: DIBELS
2– : MAP (twice per year)
4K– : Individual Growth and Development Indicators
Use grade‐level teams, assessment‐provided norms
Universal instruction
K‐2 Fountas‐Pinnell
Daily 5 & Café
Jolly Phonics
3–6: guided reading
Strategies that Work (comprehension toolkit)
Selected/intensive interventions
Selected:
Grade K: Phonemic Awareness in Young Children
K: Jolly Phonics
1–2: Leveled Literacy Intervention
1–2: Daily Café strategies
1–2: Primary Comprehension Toolkit
1–2: Sound Partners 2: Fluency First: Daily Routines to Develop
Reading Fluency
2: Six‐Minute Solution
3–5: Corrective Reading
13
3–5: Reciprocal teaching
30 min/day (Cardinal time)
Diagnostic assessments
K–6: Running Records
K–6: Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment
K–1: Concepts of Print
K–2: Jolly Phonics assessment
1–6: Developmental Spelling, Words their Way assessment
High Frequency Sight Word List
K–2: Phonemic Awareness Skills Screening
Letter Recognition assessment
MAP data (Descartes)
Intensive:
Interventions above with increased frequency, duration and focus
1–5: Reading Mastery (phonics, comprehension)
1–5: Barton Reading System (Dyslexia and LD phonics, spelling)
Progress monitoring tools with the process
DIBELS (K–2):Letter of Fluency (LNF),Initial Sounds Fluency (ISF), Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), Retelling
MAZE (3–6)
Sight word progress monitoring
Reading A to Z fluency passages
Corrective Reading and Reading Mastery: mastery assessments
Level Literacy Intervention: running records
Data‐based decision making tools and teams
Decision rules flowchart
Grade‐level collaborative team meetings
Building consultation team
Data walls
Scheduling practices for intervening Elementary: Cardinal time (30 minute extension beyond the universal instruction)
Early Childhood Center: scheduling time of intervention is determined by a team problem solving process
Culturally responsive practices Not in place/purpose building according to the SIR
Family engagement Initial implementation/full implementation according to the SIR
3Data was obtained from the RtI mapping sessions and interviews with the regional TACs.
14
AppendixB:RtItrainingsandprofessionaldevelopmentactivities2011–13
Training Name Date of Training
Beyond Diversity September 25–26, 2012
Reviewing K–5 Universal Reading Instruction April 16 & 17, May 7, 2013
Systems Coaching in an RtI Framework January 5, 2012 February 3, 2012 March 1, 2012 March 27, 2012 April 26, 2012 May 24, 2012 Additional Staff Trained: October 3, 2012 November 7, 2012 December 5, 2012
Wisconsin RtI Foundational Overview December 22, 2011
Wisconsin RtI Summit March 7–8, 2012 March 6–7, 2013