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 215)
• Individual interventions (Tier 35)
• 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 teachernot 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
  outwe 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 Parks core
  curriculum

13
Spring 2008

• Park applied for and received grant to continue
  with AmeriCorps Literacy Coordinator2 members
• West Elementary (K 1) applied for and received
  grant to have Literacy Coordinator2 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 Vaughns 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
  childs 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
  yearDRA, 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 11, 12
  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 students 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
  standardnearly exceeded the standard?

22
What RtI Looks Like at Park

• Some data from last years 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 years 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 years 4th graders
• (ORF benchmark 95 / 127)
• Fall ORF 48WCM Spring ORF 88
• Fall NWEA 8 Spring NWEA 34
• passed the MCAIIexceeded 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
  readersnot 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 yearDRA, 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 readingthe 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, ISD423
• Hutchinson, MN
• loriv_at_hutch.k12.mn.us