Implementation of Data-Based Decision-Making in an Urban Elementary School
description
Transcript of Implementation of Data-Based Decision-Making in an Urban Elementary School
Implementation of Data-Based Decision-Making in an Urban
Elementary School
Doug MarstonJane Thompson
Minneapolis Public Schools
March 26, 2009
History in Minneapolis of Data-Based ProgramModification, Problem Solving Model and RTI
• Curriculum-Based Measurement (1982)
• Problem Solving Model (1993)
• Web-based Student Data System (1999)
• Demonstration of Progress Monitoring Grant (2006)
my_collecxml_no_dmy_collecmy_collec
Stage 2: Team Intervention
Stage 1: Classroom Intervention
Academics
Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or Parent Expectation
Stage 3: Special Ed. Evaluation
Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or Parent Expectation
Building-wide Screening
Teacher/Parent Concerns
MPS Problem-Solving ModelMPS Problem-Solving Model
1-5%
15-20%
75-80%
Intensive Intervention• Few students• High Intensity
Targeted Group Interventions• Some students• Higher intensity
Core Literacy Instruction• All students
All students receive strong Core Curriculum with rigor (high and clear expectations)
All students screened with benchmarks
Students identified through screening receive more intensive literacy support in Targeted Group Intervention
Evidenced-based interventions delivered and progress monitored weekly
Students not making adequate progress receive more intensive intervention
Using Data for Instructional Decision-Making
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
Loring School (K-5): 372 Students
. American Indian 5%
. African American 43%
. Asian American 10%
. Hispanic American 16%
. White American 25%
. Students in Poverty 77%
. English Language Learners 20%
. Special Education 8%
• High quality, scientifically based classroom instruction
• Ongoing student assessment• Tiered instruction
Response to Intervention
High quality, scientifically based classroom instruction
•Reading Excellence Act/Reading First•Teacher Advancement Program (TAP)•Professional Learning Communities•Demonstration of Progress Monitoring Project
Ongoing student assessment
•Summative Data: MCA•Benchmark Data: NALT/MAP/CBM•Formative Data: Weekly CBM
Student Words ReadNames Correctly
Screening inFall, Winter,and SpringOn Words ReadCorrectly onGrade Level
Progress Monitoring is viewed on the OCR Website
Tiered instruction
• Use monthly grade level teams to review data
• Match student needs based on data with appropriate instructional strategies
• Focused on NRP areas
Tier 1-Core Tier 2 Tier 3
Kindergarten Houghton-Mifflin; Core MaterialsLeveled Library
PALS Program Reading MasteryPhonemic Awareness
Grade 1 Houghton-MifflinLeveled LibraryCollins Writing
EIRLeveled LibraryRead NaturallyReading Mastery
EIRReading Mastery
Grade 2 Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library
Leveled LibraryRead NaturallyReading Mastery
EIRReading Mastery
Grade 3 Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library
Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library
Reading Mastery
Grade 4 Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library
Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled LibrarySoar To Success
Corrective Reading
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 3
60 Minutes
60 Minutes
Classroom Teacher # 1Core or Tier 1
Classroom Teacher # 2Core or Tier 1
Typical Grade Level Instructional Groupings for Teaching Reading
Monthly Progress Monitoring and Instructional Planning Meetings
1. Meetings for each grade level
2. Participants include: general education teachers, ELL, Title 1, Special
Education, Associate Educators, EAs, Principal, Project Facilitator
3. Meetings 120 minutes in length
4. Initial tier of instruction defined by student performance on Fall
screening
5. Review student progress monitoring data (Weekly graphs)
6. Review instructional groupings and discuss intervention strategies
7. Move students needing more intensive or less intensive instruction
August JanuaryTraining on progress monitoring School-wide screening: WinterTier 2 & 3 intervention training Progress monitoring
Student data meetingsSeptember Study groups
School-wide screening: FallFormation of groups for Tier 2 and 3 FebruaryBegin progress monitoring Progress monitoringStudy groups Student data meetings
Study groupsOctober
Progress monitoring MarchStudent data meetings Progress monitoringStudy groups Student data meetings
Study groupsNovember
Progress monitoring AprilStudent data meetings Progress monitoringStudy groups MCA TESTING
May
December School-Wide screening: SpringProgress monitoring Progress monitoringStudent data meetings Student data meetings
Study groups
Fidelity of Implementation for RTI
• RTI Data Meetings for Grade Level Teams• Fidelity of Interventions• EBASS – Student Engaged Time• Reading Instruction Checklist
Summary of Year 1 Results
41 of 273 students moved up a tier (more intensive) or 15%
45 of 273 students moved down a tier (less intensive) or 16.5%
86 students out of 273 students moved up or down a tier or 31.5%
Instructional changes for studentsIn Year 1
In 2006-7 seven students were eligible for special education (2.5%)
Impact of RTI on Special Education Eligibility
Year 1: MCA changes for All Student at Loring School
Year 1: MCA Changes for African American Students at Loring School
Summary of Year 2 Results
17 of 283 students moved up a tier (more intensive) or 6%
25 of 283 students moved down a tier (less intensive) or 8.8%
42 students out of 283 students moved up or down a tier or 14.8%
Instructional changes for students in Year 2
In 2007-8 two students were eligible for special education (1%)
Impact of RTI on Special Education Eligibility: Year 2
Elements of Successful Reading Instruction (Percentage of Occurrence)
Tier 1
Tier 2
1 Phonemic awareness is taught 50 572 Phonics is used 42 653 Students have opportunities to read aloud 49 83
4Reading instruction includes explicit vocabulary instruction 59 77
5 Reading instruction includes sight word instruction 55 486 Comprehension strategies are used 85 527 Teacher modeling and guided practice are used 93 928 Writing component is evident as part of literacy block 59 79
9Classroom is rich with reading materials of high interest and varied reading levels 98 93
10 Clear classroom rules are reinforced by the teacher 95 94
11Behavior disruptions are handled consistently and promptly 90 95
12Interactions with students are positive, encouraging, and emphasize the importance of student effort 95 92
Ecobehavioral Assessment Software System(EBASS) Greenwood (1991)
Student Academic Responses (Active Engaged Time) •Writing•Task Participation•Read Aloud•Read Silently•Talk Academic
Year 1 & 2: MCA Reading - All Students
Year 1 & 2: MCA Reading Percent Proficient - Loring White and African-American Student Gap Comparisons
05-06 06-07 07-08
Loring White 72% 75% 77%State White 76% 75% 77%Loring African-American 33% 54% 52%MPS African-American 34% 31% 31%State African-American 44% 40% 43%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Observations from Principal
•Teacher repertoire increases•Instructional time maximized•Student performance formatively evaluated which informs instruction•Students continually challenged at their instructional level•Behavior issues reduced•Special education referrals reduced•School enrollment growing•Culture of school becomes more professional and positive•Joy of teaching is restored
Words of ExperienceThese must be in place:•Establishing a belief system•Strengthening core instruction•Strengthening behavior and classroom climate
Concern would be that if the above are not in place, too many students would be placed in Tier 2 interventions.
Principal’s Responsibilities:•Create a team who can develop, promote, and monitor the work•Schedules to ensure 120 minutes of Reading•Schedule Progress Monitoring •Quality of instruction•Fidelity of interventions•Choice of research-based interventions and appropriateness