Reading and Behavior Integration in an Response to Intervention Model

Reading and Behavior Integration in an Response to Intervention ModelSteve [email protected] 6, 2009New Hampshire

Moving Upstream:A Story of Prevention and Intervention

In a small town, a group of fishermen gathered down at the river. Not long after they got there, a child came floating down the rapids calling for help. One of the group on the shore quickly dived in and pulled the child out.

Minutes later another child came, then another, and then many more children were coming down the river. Soon everyone was diving in and dragging children to the shore, then jumping back in to save as many as they could.

In the midst of all this frenzy, one of the group was seen walking away. Her colleagues were irate. How could she leave when there were so many children to save? After long hours, to everyones relief, the flow of children stopped, and the group could finally catch their breath.

At that moment, their colleague came back. They turned on her and angrily shouted: HOW COULD YOU WALK OFF WHEN WE NEEDED EVERYONE HERE TO SAVE THE CHILDREN?

She replied, It occurred to me that someone ought to go upstream and find out why so many kids were falling into the river. What I found is that the old wooden bridge had several planks missing, and when some children tried to jump over the gap, they couldnt make it and fell through into the river. So I got someone to fix the bridge.

Participating Schools

Chart1

022

2131

5255

107154

26195

Existing Schools

New Schools

Sheet1

Year

2003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-2008

New Schools22315515495

Existing Schools02152107261

2252107261356

169

Sheet1

Existing Schools

New Schools

Year

Number of Schools

Cummulative Totals of Participating MiBLSi Schools

Sheet2

Sheet3

MiBLSi Mission StatementTo develop support systems and sustained implementation of a data-driven, problem-solving model in schools to help students become better readers with social skills necessary for success.

Prerequisites for MiBLSi ImplementationCommitment by80% of building staffAdministration at building and district levelsAgreement to implement for at least three yearsReading/Behavior one of top three building goalsBuilding team and coach identified

Percent of Students at DIBELS Benchmark (Spring) and Major Discipline Referrals per 100 Students

Began ImplementationFall 2001Changed MEAPFall 2005Michigan Educational Assessment Program: Example School

Chart1

29.633.836.6

42.627.729.8

27.130.542.4

61.7308.3

57.230.212.7

70.8236

55.633.311.1

70.225.54.3

71.721.76.5

% Exceeded or Met (Satisfactory)

% Basic Level (Moderate)

% Apprentice (Low)

Percent

Sheet1

% Exceeded or Met (Satisfactory)% Basic Level (Moderate)% Apprentice (Low)% Exceeded or Met (Satisfactory)% Basic Level (Moderate)% Apprentice (Low)

200029.633.836.6200457.230.212.7

200142.627.729.8200361.7308.3

200227.130.542.4200227.130.542.4

200361.7308.3200142.627.729.8

200457.230.212.7200029.633.836.6

200570.823.06.099.8199962.924.212.9

200555.633.311.1100199848.525.825.8

200670.225.54.3100198935.427.637

200771.721.76.599.9

Change in 2003 to new categories

Sheet2

Sheet3

Integration of Academic and Behavior SupportsContinuum of Supports

Examples of Academic and Behavior SupportsContinuum of Supports

The Link Between Reading and Behavior(Kent McIntosh, 2008)The relationship increases as students progress through school (Fleming et al., 2004; Morrison et al., 2001; Nelson et al., 2004; Roeser & Eccles, 2000) The relationship is strongest for students with externalizing behavior(Kellam et al., 1998; Nelson et al., 2004)Students who experience problems in both areas have worst outcomes(McKinney, 1989; Reinke, 2007)

Why look at both Behavior and Reading supportBoth are critical for school successShare critical feature of data-based decision makingBoth utilize three tiered prevention modelBoth incorporate a team approach at school level, grade level, and individual levelModels of integrated behavior and reading supports produce larger gains in literacy skills than the reading-only model (Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2007)

Improving the social behavior of students results in:More minutes spent in academic instruction(Putnam, Handler and OLeary-Zonarich, 2003; Putnam, Handler, Rey and OLeary-Zonarich, 2002)

*Cost of Behavior Problems

1,792 office discipline referrals @ 15 minutes per incident = 26,880 minutes =448 hours/8 days=56 days lost instructional time

I spend more time visiting and assisting teachers in the classrooms than I ever have because I spend much less time on discipline issues. Because we have more time, we have been able to re-structure our day to incorporate more time to teach reading.

Sherryl Martin, PrincipalRiverton Elementary, Ludington

MiBLSi Schools and Reading MEAP:Average Total Office Discipline Referrals per 100 Students per Day 2004-2005

Chart1

0.235

1.35

Total ODR/100 students 2004-2005

Average Major Discipline Referrals per 100 Students per Day

Sheet1

Old

Self-Assessment Survey

CriteriaYearODR/100NumberExclude WSTARODR/100NumberPercent

>= 702005-20060.65130.284541214%ODR/100n =

< 702005-20060.8033750.89797486%Not Met Criteria (= 702004-20051.17250.833348%Met Criteria (>70%)0.6513CriteriaYearODR/100Number

< 702004-20050.9494440.94884492%>= 602005-20060.90530

< 602005-20060.56958

>= 602004-2005

Team Checklist< 602004-2005

CriteriaYearODR/100NumberExclude WSTARODR/100NumberPercent

>= 802005-20060.54331930%Self-Assessment Survey

< 802005-20060.67314570%CriteriaYearODR/100Number

>= 802004-20051.245350%>= 652005-20060.988921

< 802004-20051.45350%< 652005-20060.618267

>= 652004-2005

Team Checklist Spring< 652004-2005

CriteriaYearODR/100Number

>= 802005-20060.819Self-Assessment Survey

< 802005-20060.794449CriteriaYearODR/100Number

>= 802004-20050.65754>= 672005-20060.987720

< 802004-20051.144325< 672005-20060.63168

>= 672004-20051.1725

< 672004-20050.949444

Team Checklist winter or Spring 80%

CriteriaYearODR/100NumberPercent of schools meeting 80% TICSelf-Assessment Survey

>= 802005-20060.62742826%CriteriaYearODR/100NumberExclude WSTARODR/100NumberPercent

< 802005-20060.8406622>= 702005-20060.65130%

>= 802004-20050.48887Percent of schools meeting 70% Survey< 702005-20060.8033750%

< 802004-20051.45312%>= 702004-20051.17250%

< 702004-20050.9494440%



Team Checklist winter or Spring 90%>= 752005-20060.810

CriteriaYearODR/100Number< 752005-20060.756978

>= 902005-20060.769418>= 752004-20050.80663

< 902005-20060.6734< 752004-20051.0346

>= 902004-2005

< 902004-2005Self-Assessment Survey


Team Checklist winter or Spring 85%>= 802005-20061.0857

CriteriaYearODR/100Number< 802005-20060.719281

>= 852005-20060.659226>= 802004-2005

< 852005-20060.802523< 802004-2005

>= 852004-20050.5625

< 852004-20051.4530

Team Checklist Spring


>= 852005-20060.819

< 852005-20060.695749

>= 852004-2005

< 852004-2005

Winter or Spring >= 80% (TIC) and Self-Assessment >=70


>= 852005-20060.77779

< 852005-20060.72780

>= 852004-2005

< 852004-2005

PETReadin Team Checklist if winter or spring

CriteriaYear% @ benchmarkNumberCriteriaYear% @ benchmarkNumber

>= 702005-2006>= 702005-200652.0615

< 702005-2006< 702005-200651.8217

>= 702004-2005

< 702004-2005



>= 752005-200651.7315>= 752005-200650.3312

< 752005-200656.5329< 752005-200652.8919

>= 752004-200549.166

< 752004-200551.0615



>= 802005-200651.5812>= 802005-200647.857

< 802005-200656.12932< 802005-200652.6621

>= 802004-2005495

< 802004-20055116


CriteriaYear% @ benchmarkNumberPercent at CriteriaCriteriaYear% @ benchmarkNumberPercent at Criteria

>= 852005-200651.560.0560747664>= 852005-200650.540.0373831776

< 852005-200655.438< 852005-200652.8122

>= 852004-200555.333

< 852004-200549.7218



>= 902005-200653.754>= 902005-200650.54

< 902005-200654.9740< 902005-200652.822

>= 902004-2005552

< 902004-200550.0519

Sheet1

ODR/100

Major Dicipline Referrals per 100 Students

EBS Self Assessment Survey (schoolwide component) and Major Discipline Referrals per 100 Students

SURVEY

TIC 05-06

CriteriaODR/100NumberCriteriaODR/100Number

>= 700.6513< 700.803375

ODR/100/day

Not Met CriteriaMet Criteriaavg enrollmentavg enrollment

2005-2006ODR/100/Day0.80330.65ODR/100/dayODR/100/day3.613.61

Met 80%Not Met 80%DifferenceMet 80%Not Met 80%Difference

0.650.8033-0.15332.34652.899913-0.553413

Avg Days per school year178

Per school avergae of 361 students and average days per year of 178

Met 80%Not Met 80%Difference*20min/referral/60 =hrs/day7hrs day

417.677516.184514-98.507514-1970.15028-32.835838-4.690834

By calculating that the average school enrollment is 361 (in our project) and the average school days per year is 178. At 20 minutes per referral the difference between schools who met criteria and those who have not met criteria of 70% on Self-Assessment

WHAT ABOUT SUSPENSIONS??



>= 702005-20060.6513

< 702005-20060.803375

>= 702004-20051.1725

< 702004-20050.949444

SURVEY

ODR/100/Day

Discipline Referrals per 100 Students/Day

Office Discipline Referral Outcome-Criteria: Self Assessment Survey

TIC

TIC 05-06

CriteriaODR/100NumberCriteriaODR/100Number

Win or Spr >=1000.954449Win andSpr =950.954449Win andSpr =900.769418Win andSpr =850.659226Win andSpr =800.627428Win andSpr =750.590335Win andSpr =700.739741Win andSpr =65Win andSpr =60Win andSpr =55Win andSpr =50Win andSpr = 70

MetNot Met

Overall MEAP76.6881.4

Number10

MEAP SCOREMet or Above (Levels 1 & 2 )

Grade386.60%

483.20%

Percent Responses in Place on Survey -classroom spr 05580%

=>656070706560=55%55

MEAP- 4th grade Reading Assessment29 Elementary Schools In MichiganSchoolwide: Over 55% of major discipline referrals from classroomSchoolwide: Under 55% of major discipline referrals from classroomProbability of scoring below 75% proficiency on 4th grade MEAP (Reading): .78Probability of scoring above 75% proficiency on 4th grade MEAP (Reading): .75

High quality instruction engages students, and leads to reduction in problem behavior.

Quality instruction can reduce student engagement in problem behaviorSanford (2006) Explicit instructionFrequent opportunities to respondAppropriate placement (95% correct in text)Preciado, Horner, Baker (2009)Teaching decoding skillsReview/Preview of grade level storyReview 2-3 key vocabulary words in the storyReview directions and help student complete the next days reading independent taskTeach student how to ask for a break from taskTeach student how to ask for peer or adult assistance to complete a reading task

We have an obligation to think of students as difficult to teach before we label them as unable to learn.(Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly & Vaughn, 2004)

Children who fall behind academically will be more likely to:Find academic work aversiveFind escape-maintained problem behaviors reinforced

Pathways to Multiple Problems(McIntosh, 2008)Social behaviour deficit model Social skills problems may lead to academic problems (Dishion, French, & Patterson, 1995; Hinshaw, 1992; Reid and Patterson, 1991; Wehby, Lane, & Falk, 2003) Academic skill deficit modelAcademic problems may lead to behavior problems (Lee et al., 1999; Roberts et al.,2001)

Distribution of Elementary Reading Intervention Level Michigan Example (based on DIBELS assessment) 33%43%56%24%20%(n = 201)24%(n = 4074)

6+ ODR by Read level

0.42562592050.33308787430.2412862052

0.19900497510.23880597010.5621890547

Benchmark

Strategic

Intensive

Intensive by ODR

0.79294166670.12750.07955

0.77235772360.13821138210.0894308943

Little or No Problem (0-1 referrals)

At Risk (2-5 referrals)

Identify Problem (6+ referrals)

Data

All StudentsAll studentsPERCENTStudents with 6+ ODRsReading level

All StudentsStudents with 6+ ODRs

Benchmark1734Benchmark43%Benchmark40Benchmark20%

Strategic1357Strategic33%Strategic48Strategic24%

Intensive983Intensive24%Intensive113Intensive56%

4074100%201100%

All studentsODRPercent

All StudentsODRStudents in Intensive Reading Intervention Level

Little or No Problem (0-1 referrals)79%Little or No Problem (0-1 referrals)190Little or No Problem (0-1 referrals)77%

At Risk (2-5 referrals)13%At Risk (2-5 referrals)34At Risk (2-5 referrals)14%

Identify Problem (6+ referrals)8%Identify Problem (6+ referrals)22Identified w/ Problem (6+ referrals)9%

100%246100%

Sheet2

Sheet3

Talk with others at your tableWhy would you integrate two major initiative of Behavior and Reading Supports?

If antisocial behavior is not changed by the end of grade 3, it should be treated as a chronic condition much like diabetes. That is, it cannot be cured but managed with the appropriate supports and continuing interventions

(Walker, Colvin & Ramsey, 1995)

Big Ideas to Improve BehaviorSpecify appropriate behaviorTeach appropriate behaviorMonitor behaviorEncourage appropriate behaviorCorrect inappropriate behavior

Approximately 75% of children identified with reading problems by third grade are found to be struggling in reading at ninth grade (Shapiro, 2004)

Big Ideas to Improve ReadingClear goals/objectives Research-based instructional practicesInstructional timeInstructional leadershipResponsive intervention programAssessmentProfessional development

McGlinchey & Hixson (2004)Relationship of Reading Rate and MEAP Performance: One School

Chart1

2322

4142

2227

4649

Reading 100 WCPM

Satisfactory MEAP

School years

Percent of students

Sheet1

1234

Reading 100 WCPM23412246

Satisfactory MEAP22422749

Steps for Successful Readers (Schools in Kalamazoo County 2004-2006)Phonemic Awareness(Spr, Kdg)Probability of Catching-UpProbability of Staying on Track

Looking at Julias dataProblem solving from an individual student level to systems level

End of Year goal is to demonstrate this skill at 35 phonemes per minute-grey areaAs an educator, do you have a concern about this childs progress on the end of year goal/skill (remember she is only in Kindergarten)Based on her performance and progress, would you think she may have some sort of developmental delay?

End of Year goal is to demonstrate this skill at 35 phonemes per minute-grey areaAnd now the rest of the class.Now that you see this student in the context of the whole class. What are your thoughts regarding the lack of significant growth?The environmental background is a significant factor in a schools achievement, given that so many children start below, and end below expectations.

Same building different teacherWould having this information, make a difference in your instructional decisions at a building level?Would it make a difference at the classroom level?

90-30-30 Reading BlockComstock East Elementary

A Tiered Literacy Approach

Importance of Protected Reading Block at Loftis Elementary School

Chart2

0.05263157890.7894736842

00.7333333333

Sept

May

Chart4

0.05263157890.7894736842

00.7333333333

0.10344827590.96

0.170.85

Sept

May

Sheet1

Pallet

2005-20062005-20062006-2007

SeptJanMaySeptJanMaySeptJanMay

Benchmark11508113

Strategic628528

Intensive12261218

190191414152900

2005-20062005-20062006-20072007 - 2008

SeptJanMaySeptJanMaySeptJanMaySeptJanMay

Benchmark5%79%0%57%73%10%96%17%85%

Strategic32%11%57%36%13%28%39%

Intensive63%11%43%7%13%62%44%15%

100%0%100%100%100%100%100%

2005-2006

2004-20052005-20062006-20072007-2008

Sept5%0%10%17%

May79%73%96%85%

Sept0%

May73%

Sept10%

May

Sheet2

Sheet3

How do we do this in our schools?Use existing teams/committees as much as possibleEmbed project activities into current initiatives (i.e., school improvement, safe schools, character education, etc.)Establish three levels of implementation, each with different functionsSchool-wideGrade levelIndividual student

Braiding MiBLSi with School Building and District InitiativesReading FirstSchool ImprovementResponse to InterventionNo Child Left BehindStudent Support Team

Leadership Team RolesPrincipal: Create and enhance system of support for staff implementation activities through securing resources, acknowledging success, and demonstrating priority/visibility of programAdditional Team Member: Develop plan and provide leadership with implementation activities at building level, provide communication with school communityCoach: Facilitate the process for school-wide implementation, problem solve, celebrate success

We may need to confirm/develop our current commitment statusMain Ideas:Confirm commitment from administrationReview school-improvement goals (reading/Behavior in top three goals)Share current status of reading/behavior student performance with staff, ask if satisfied with thisAsk staff if things are likely to improve if we continue in same way

Talk with others at your tableWhat is the level of commitment for implementation at your school?, District? How might you increase or sustain commitment?

Implementation at Grade LevelExample Grade Level Meeting at East ElementaryGrade level meetings are awesome Teachers ask what they can do differently to make sure students come better prepared for success next year Meetings focus on two grades at a time to insure connection.Chuck Tansey, PrincipalEdison Environmental Science Academy

Organizer (30 minute presentation)

Main Messagesadapted from McIntosh (2008) and Horner (2008)To improve overall academic achievement, focus on school-wide academic AND behavior supportTo improve overall behavior, focus on school-wide academic AND behavior supportImplementation of any evidence-based practice requires a more coordinated focus than typically expected.

*********To create positive safe school environments for all students in the buildingTo teach all children to read by third gradeTo reach all schools in the state*******Effective programs do require an upfront investment of time and energy, but over time, they more than pay for themselves in terms of teaching time won back.

Relationship Between Behavior and Reading*If greater than 55% of major discipline referrals come from classroom, the probability of scoring below 75% proficiency on Reading MEAP is .78If less than 55% of major discipline referrals come from classroom, the probability of scoring above 75% proficiency on Reading MEAP is .75*Based on 29 elementary schoolsStewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., and Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007). Three-tier models or reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive Interventions, 9, 239-252.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to analyze the research literature on three-tier models of reading and behavior and to provide a descriptive analysis and meta-analytic review of these models. An in-depth review of 17 articles was conducted on the similarities and differences between and among three-tier models of reading (n = 5), models of behavior (n = 7), and integrated models (combining reading and behavior; n = 5). Descriptive analyses were conducted across three areas: student populations, intervention level, and setting. Finally, a meta-analytic review was completed of 11 of the 17 investigations. Scientific evidence shows that one or more levels of these three-tier models leads to improved reading or behavior performance; however, there is a paucity of research detailing the integration of three-tier reading and behavior models. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

**State average on MEAP is 82% proficiency per school on Fall 2005 assessmentsAmanda Sanford- DissertationThe effects of function-based literacy instruction on problem behavior and reading growthby Sanford, Amanda Kathleen Connor, Ph.D., University of Oregon, 2006, 155 pages; AAT 3251871Abstract (Summary)There are an alarming number of students who struggle with reading difficulties and antisocial behavior. In fact, reading difficulties and antisocial behavior are two of the strongest predictors of later life success or failure (Walker & Shinn, 2002). Prevention of reading difficulties and antisocial behavior begins with effective interventions that focus on both academic and behavioral features of instruction. This study examined the effects of function-based literacy instruction on student problem behavior and reading acquisition. Function-based literacy instruction is instruction that aims to (a) increase students' literacy skills, and (b) reduce presentation of aversive academic tasks that occasion problem behavior in the classroom. The study found that there is a functional relationship between implementation of function-based literacy instruction that is (a) effective and (b) at students' appropriate instructional level and reduced levels of disengaged problem behavior for second and third grade students who engaged in escape-maintained problem behavior during reading instruction. Data were inconclusive with respect to the relationship between function-based literacy instruction and reading growth. Implications and future directions for research are discussed.

Jorge Preciado- DissertationUsing a function-based approach to decrease problem behaviors and increase reading academic engagement for Latino English language learnersby Preciado, Jorge A., Ph.D., University of Oregon, 2006, 136 pages; AAT 3238462Abstract (Summary)This study evaluates the effectiveness of a function-based intervention to improve behavior and academic reading outcomes for Latino English Language Learners (ELLs) who demonstrate escape maintained problem behaviors. The participants, four Latino ELLs in an elementary school general education setting (i.e., 2 nd , 3 rd , and 4 th grade), were directly observed over a 14-week period. Indirect teacher interviews along with archival reviews were conducted to establish a hypothesis statement regarding function of problem behavior. A functional analysis was implemented to determine and verify the function of problem behavior (e.g., escape-maintained). A single subject multiple baseline across participants design was used to document the relationship between reduction in problem behavior and implementation of a Language Matched Intervention Priming. The intervention involved daily mentoring by a bi-lingual mentor who (a) reviewed the lesson for the next day, (b) taught vocabulary associated with the next day lesson, and (c) reviewed the instructions for reading learning activity assignment for the next day. Results documented a functional relationship between implementation of the intervention and reduction in problem behavior.

This version was published on February 1, 2009The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 42, No. 4, 227-240 (2009)DOI: 10.1177/0022466907313350

Using a Function-Based Approach to Decrease Problem Behaviors and Increase Academic Engagement for Latino English Language Learners

Jorge A. PreciadoUniversity of Oregon, Eugene, [email protected]

Robert H. Horner

University of Oregon, Eugene

Scott K. Baker

University of Oregon, Eugene

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a function-based intervention to improve behavior and reading outcomes for Latino English language learners (ELLs). The participants, four Latino ELLs in an elementary school general education setting, were directly observed over a 14-week period. Functional behavioral assessment via teacher interviews and archival reviews were conducted to establish a hypothesis regarding the maintaining function of students' problem behavior. A functional analysis was conducted to verify the function of students' problem behavior, and a single-subject, multiple-baseline, across-subjects design was used to document the relationship between reduction in problem behavior and implementation of language-matched instructional priming. Results documented a functional relationship between intervention and reduction of problem behavior.

*Come to sch w/o basic soc skls (how to get attn appropriately-- how to say no thanks)Come to school w or w/o soc skls, but with acad deficits (behind others) acad tasks become aversive, do what they can to get out of it (do what you gotta do)

**Behavior and Reading Federal Grant 2003*So, what does it look like for a school building who chooses to participate with MiBLSi? In the area of behavior, the big ideas are based on the work from the national center for behavior interventions and supports. These ideas connect to building practices. First, school staffs decide on 3-5 positively stated rules, and then objectively define what those rules look like across schools settings. Next, the appropriate behavior is taught explicitly in each setting, and it is monitored by all staff. Appropriate behavior is encouraged through additional teaching when necessary and a system of positive acknowledgement for students. Finally, staffs develop a continuum of responses for correcting inappropriate behavior. They collect ongoing information regarding their level of implementation and impact on student behavior. *In the area of reading, we also have big ideas or critical features. The big ideas in reading come from the consensus literature of the National Reading Panel report and National Research Council. Each school goes through a school audit to identify their strengths and needs with regard to these features. Clear goals are established at each grade level and research based instructional practices are adopted, specific to the unique needs of the individual school. Uninterrupted instructional time is created and protected, through the instructional leadership of the building principal and leadership team. Schools work to develop a multi-tiered structure of intervention that is responsive and adjusts to the changing needs of the students in the building. Students who have a greater need receive more direct instruction. The instructional decisions are guided by a reliable and valid assessment system that provides ongoing information about whether students are benefiting from the interventions that are being provided. This assessment process allows us to change an instructional practice that is not working for a given group of students before too much time is lost. And finally schools plan for, and implement professional development based on the goals and objectives at each grade level. These big ideas are consistent with the requirements of Reading First schools.

*We took the measures about two weeks before the MEAP was administered. This was a one minute reading sample. We determined the percentage of students who read 100 WCPM or greater, which the line represents. The other line represents the percentage of students who received a Satisfactory score on the MEAP. This is across four years of test administration and the sample size is about 285 students. We tested this relation further in the fourth year. Two weeks before the MEAP was administered, we took a one minute reading sample of all the fourth graders in the district.There were 843 students, and of these students 54% of them read 100 WCPM or greater, and 55% of them received a Satisfactory score on the MEAP. At each of the individual buildings, the agreement between the two measures looked like this *Probability of remaining an average reader in fourth grade when an average reader in first grade is .87Probability of remaining a poor reader at the end of fourth grade when a poor reader at the end of first grade is .88 (Juel, 1988)

The main point here is that the odds are against students catching up to their peers- Prevention is the key

The steps are based on the findings from the National Reading Panels and are measured by DIBELS**I would like us to begin by taking a look at this graph. This is a Kindergarten class report of student performance on a CBM of phoneme segmentation. Segmentation is a component skill of Phonemic Awareness, which is highly predictive of later reading success. The grey bar is the goal. It is recommended that all students reach this target by the end of Kindergarten, 35 segments per minute. The red bars represent the students skills in January, and the blue bar represents the students skills in May. Student names run along the bottom of the graph.*I would like us to begin by taking a look at this graph. This is a Kindergarten class report of student performance on a CBM of phoneme segmentation. Segmentation is a component skill of Phonemic Awareness, which is highly predictive of later reading success. The grey bar is the goal. It is recommended that all students reach this target by the end of Kindergarten, 35 segments per minute. The red bars represent the students skills in January, and the blue bar represents the students skills in May. Student names run along the bottom of the graph.*This is another kindergarten classroom in the building. Let me ask you, if you were a building administrator, or on your school improvement team, would this information be helpful to you? Would it make a difference in how you might support the two teachers? If you are a special educator and you had access to this class report, how would you feel about this student being referred for consultation. How would you feel about this student being referred for consultation (other chart second from the end). Would having this information make you feel more comfortable about assessing the fidelity of the initial instruction? About assessing the needs of the student?

Having information like this on each and all students in a school building is the foundational principle of our work with schools. Our primary goal is to establish a school culture in which student performance data drives instructional decision making at all levels of school operation school wide, grade level, class level and individual student level. This process is ongoing and responsive, within and across school years. IDEA 2003*Comstock East is a MiBLSi school that has been working to implement this 90-30-30 model of multi-tiered support. This is a good example of a school moving in the right direction. Before starting MiBLSi, they did not have a core program and had only 30 minutes of an uninterrupted reading instructional block. *****McIntosh, K. (2008) Further analyses of relations between reading skills and problem behaviour. DIBELS Summit.Horner, R. (2008) School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Detroit PBS Initiative (MiBLSi)

*

Reading and Behavior Integration in an Response to Intervention Model

Documents

Transcript of Reading and Behavior Integration in an Response to Intervention Model