Farmington High School December 19, 2011. Ben Kusch, Principal Kristin Scherman, Secondary...

Success With Response to Intervention at the High

School Level

Farmington High SchoolDecember 19, 2011

Welcome & Introductions Ben Kusch, Principal

Kristin Scherman, Secondary Literacy Coach

Kari Simonson, Reading Specialist

Sara Byers-Platt, Reading Specialist

Dr. Christine Weymouth, Assistant Superintendent

About Us Farmington High School

• Approximately 1800 students 15% FRP Lunch 10% SpEd 12% Students of color 2% ELL

Following Along Wikispaces:

• http://fhsrti.wikispaces.com/

http://fhsrti.wikispaces.com/

Keeping the End in Mind:Participants Will Be Able To: Understand the theory behind RTI Define what an RTI program can look like at the high school

level Learn about the process of developing a pyramid of

interventions for reading for high school students Explore the data collection and progress monitoring tools that

support data driven decisions making for tier II interventions Determine ways to expand professional learning through

common formative assessments Explore how to engage in collaborative partnerships between

multiple levels of stakeholders in the building, district and larger educational community

Identify tools and processes to measure the success of adult actions and professional learning to improving student achievement

RtI Overview What is your current level of

understanding in regards to RtI?• “I’ve heard of it, but not much else.”• “I know a little bit about it, but need to learn

more”• “I am in the early implementation stages of

an RtI initiative/program”• “I am actively implementing an RtI

program/initiative in my organization and am curious about what others are doing”

Grounding:RtI Model

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual InterventionsIndividual students

High IntensityOf long duration5% of students

Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)

Highly effective instruction in-addition to classroom instruction

Rapid response to specific intervention area of need15-20% of students

Tier 1: Core Intervention:All students (80% are successful with Tier 1 supports)

Preventative / Pro-activeAll students

Grounding:Initial RtI Model—FHS

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual InterventionsIndividual students

High IntensityOf long duration

Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions:1. RTI Model2. Research-based best practice in literacy instruction3. Highly-qualified Reading Specialists

Tier 1: Core Intervention:1. The Gradual Release of Responsibility Model2. Reading Across the Content Areas3. Non-Fiction Writing4. Assessing for Understanding5. Blooms Taxonomy

Spring of 2008:

New High Stakes Accountability • (State and Fed)

Underperforming Students • (07-08 Scores 56.6% passing in 10th Grade)

Lack of a cohesive plan The more we learned, the more

reason we had to be concerned.

2008-2009 Urgency of Now Understanding Importance of Tier I

Interventions—a Cohesive Structure• Collaborative Structures • Literacy groundwork and professional

development District Level Building Level

• Research on RtI (Especially secondary)

Program Considerations: 2007-2009

High School Readers • Lack of consensus on how best to intervene with

older struggling readers (Espin & Tindal, 1998). • Multiple factors contribute to comprehension of high

schoolers (phonics, fluency and vocabulary, Edmonds et al. 2009).

• Reading fluency has been shown to account for 30% of the variation in high school graduation tests.

• Teaching word level skills to adolescents resulted in a moderate effect on comprehension (Joseph & Schisler, 2009; Rasinski et al., 2005)

(M. Burns, 2011)


An Intervention Plan that Accelerates Student Growth Should:• Be data driven and based on students’ needs to assure growth

in reading development and to support the independent application of strategic reading throughout the school day.

• Encompass a triangulation of multiple data measures which include norm-referenced, criterion-based, and informal assessments should be used to redesign reading intervention plans and for moving student into, between, and out of appropriate interventions.

• Contain entrance and exit criteria that represents the accelerated growth needed to ensure students are making adequate progress toward grade level expectations.

• NEVER BE AN INTERVENTION TO SOLELY PREPARE STUDENTS TO PASS A STANDARDIZED TEST.


4 Main Objectives of an Effective Assessment Plan :• SCREENING: To identify students who are at-risk or who are

experiencing difficulties on an on-going basis and who may need extra instruction or intensive interventions if they are to progress toward grade-level by the end of the year.

• PROGRESS MONITORING: To monitor students’ progress during the year to determine whether students in intervention are making adequate progress in literacy development.

• DIAGNOSIS: To inform instructional planning in order to meet the needs of individual students.

• EVALUATION: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and whether the instruction provided is intensive enough to help students achieve grade-level standards by the end of the each year.

Program Considerations: : 2007-2009

Beliefs around Reading Intervention:• Multiple data measures are used for

screening, diagnostic and progress monitor • There are no packaged programs that will

meet all the needs of struggling adolescent readers equally.

• Reading intervention intensity is variable based on individual need

• All teachers develop rapport with, and feel responsible for, the success of students.


Considerations for Intervention Programming• Most recent MCA (Minnesota

Comprehensive Assessment) reading scores.

• MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) reading scores.

• Teacher/Counselor/Reading Specialist Recommendations

• Focus on Intervention

National Reading Panel

Setting the Stage: 2010-2011

The next evolution of Tier II intervention• We needed a better way to organize/align

our assessments around knowing where our students were deficient.

• Once we knew that, we needed to determine what the best intervention for each student was.

Class Structure: Refined66 Min. in addition to a regular English Class

READ ALOUD•Fiction•Non-Fiction•Read Naturally (fluency)•Rewards (decoding)

MINI-LESSON•All students receive mini-lesson instruction in the areas of comprehension or vocabulary strategies. Some phonemic awareness activities•Read 180

INDEPENDENTREADING

•Last 20 min. of each class•Students reading texts of their choice at their independent reading level•Fridays are 66 min. of independent reading / conferring

Setting the Stage/Speed Bumps:

Fluency• Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency

(TOSCRF/Slasher) PRO-ED: Austin, TX

Standard score 90 or below.

• Read Naturally Read Naturally, St. Paul, MN

• Read 180 Scholastic


Word Work/Decoding• Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency

(TOSCRF/Slasher) Standard score 90 or below

• Woodcock Johnson Nonsense Words• Rewards Cambium Learning Company, Boston, MA

• Morphemes/Word Mapping


Vocabulary• Root Trees• Thinking about patterns in words• Morphemes: Roots, Prefixes, Suffixes: Identifying

them in words to decode and attach meaning • Word Mapping• Word Diary work

These strategies give students the ability to attach meaning to unknown words without having to use a dictionary, or worse…skip the word.


Comprehension• Active Reading Strategies

Question Evaluate/Comment Connect Review/Clarify Predict Visualize Respond

Beers, Kylene. When Kids Can’t Read: What Teachers Can Do. Portmouth: Heinemann, 2003. Print.

Literature: The Reader’s Choice. New York: Glenco/McGraw-Hill, 2002. Print

Active Reading Strategies:Ask a Question

Why did… What’s this part about… How is this (fill in detail) like this

(fill in detail)… What would happen if… Why… Who is… What does this section (fill in

detail) mean… Do you think that … I don’t get this part here… What is the writer saying here… Why is the writing giving me this

information… How does this concept relate to

what I just read… © Beers, Kylene. When Kids Can’t Read: What Teachers Can Do.

Portmouth: Heinemann, 2003. Print. Literature: The Reader’s Choice. New York: Glenco/McGraw-Hill, 2002. Print

Evaluate/Comment This action (fill in detail) reveals this (fill

in detail) about …. This is fact because… This is opinion because… This information supports the thesis

because… This information does not support the

thesis because… I agree with writer’s opinions and

interpretations (tell what you agree with and why)…

I do not agree with the writer’s opinions and interpretations (tell what you do not agree with and why)…

This is good because… This is hard because… This is confusing because… I like the part where… I don’t like this part because… I think that…

Active Reading StrategiesMake a Connection

This reminds me of… This part is like... This person (fill in name) is like (fill

in name) because… This is similar to… The differences are… I also (name something in the text

that has also happened to you)… I never (name something in the text

that has never happened to you)… This person makes me think of… This place reminds me of… This person and events in my own

life are similar to… A connection I can make between

this subject and another subject is...

Make a Prediction I predict that… I bet that... I think that… Since this happened (fill in

detail), then I bet the next thing that is going to happen is...

Reading this part makes me think that this (fill in detail) is about to happen…

I wonder if… I think this work will be about… I think the supporting details

will be… I think the next point the writer

will make is…

Active Reading StrategiesRespond

That’s interesting. I want to know more about…

The people with whom I’d like to share this work include…

I’d like to ask the writer why…

I think this idea is…

Review/Clarify The writer’s purpose is… The main idea is… The writer supports the

thesis with these supporting details…

The events described, in order, are…

Oh, I get it… Now I understand... At first I thought (fill in

detail), but now I think… This part is really saying…

Active Reading StrategiesVisualize

This person looks like….. This place looks like… This object looks like… How does this part (fill in detail) fit

together with this (fill in detail)…


Independent Reading• At least 20 minutes of independent reading

each day. • Students reading texts of their choice at their

independent reading level• Fridays are 66 min. of independent reading• Conferencing

Where they are as readers (data, areas of reading)

Choices in reading


Engagement + Motivation = Success!• In order for this to happen, interventions must provide: Choice in reading Print and digital resources that are at the

students’ independent reading levels Opportunities to read independently Authentic experiences to respond and react to

text orally and /or in writing

(Guthrie, 2008)


Motivation• Connecting kids to books through: fix for outline

idea• Extensive classroom library• Showing book trailers• Proximity to media center• Relationships with students• Encourage students to take ownership for their test

scores.• Target their areas of need: assist in ownership.• Help them realize that reading is for everyone.• Celebrate growth


Success• Kids are reading: some outside of class• Students are passing the GRAD test• All seniors scheduled in to classes have

passed the test.• Last senior to pass last year made the B

honor- roll in college first semester.

Success:MAZE Slope TOSCRF Change

Intervention Condition

N Mean SD Mean SD

Comprehension

37 .62 .87 4.90 7.85

Code-Based 11 .90 .59 11.45 5.66

MAZE Slope Mann Whitney U, p=.27; d=.35TOSCRF Change Mann Whitney U, p=.003*; d=.89

(M. Burns, 2011)


What’s Working• Our literacy intervention model is now being

utilized at both the middle and high school• Our model has recently been recognized by

the state as an innovative program of excellence

• Our test scores…


Still Working on• Integrity of program Reading Intervention: criteria

to get into program• Class size for intervention (not part of pool of

electives)• Teaming and scheduling• Special Education component: IEP goals, Matching

Student Need to Appropriate Intervention• ELL component: Double-dosed Students• Reading classes versus English classes• Where we go next• Anticipating even more growth

Session Agenda: Grounding Activity / Pre-Assessment:

~ “What is our shared background knowledge regarding RtI?”

Keeping the End in Mind: ~Review Outcomes

Setting the Stage: ~Personal experience & description of the process

through which we began our program grounded in research

Road Blocks and Speed Bumps:~Ways around and over them to experience success

Building Bridges with New and Shared Knowledge: ~Through collaborative group strategies participants will be able to process, problem-solve, share, and apply new knowledge to their current situation

Professional

/Program Developme

nt

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

TIER 1 •SD in Reading Across Content Areas

•SD in Assessing for Understanding / CFA’s

•Q-Comp hitting stride

•SD in Reading Across Content Areas


•Non-Fiction Writing




•Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Model




•Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Model

GOING DEEPER!

Resulting MCA Data

(% Proficiency)

56.6 69.1 77.6 74.9 81.1

Professional

/Program Developme

nt

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

TIER 2 •Initial data conversations•Literacy Research begins•Discussions with Data Coordinator

•Began to look at data

•Began to research programming

•Initial planning stages

•Rudimentary intervention programming

•Developed program criteria / data points•Developed “Literacy Class” (Proficiency /Accelerated)•Hired a Reading Specialist•Adjusted schedules •Tested program materials

•Refined program criteria•Refined “Literacy Class”•Hired an additional Reading Specialist•Refined schedules•Tested program materials•Worked alongside Matt Burns (U of M) to refine program assessments and intervention delivery•Began discussions with Sped. and ELL as it pertained to “collaboration”

•Refined program criteria •Refined “Literacy Class” to encompass all students•Refined schedules•Implementation of a true TIER 2 Model•Cont. collaboration between Sped. and ELL

TIER 3 SpEd/ELLProgramming

SpEd/ELLProgramming

SpEd/ELLProgramming

SpEd/ELLProgramming

SpEd/ELLProgramming

Resulting MCA Data

(% Proficiency)

56.6 69.1 77.6 74.9 81.1

StudentProfile

(Key struggles)

Standards Assessments:*Triangulate data for services

Tiered Interventions

Classroom InterventionFor students scoring at or below 26th

to 40th percentile and/or who are reading one to two levels below their current grade level and need support in vocabulary and comprehension.

Screening:MAP / NWEA (through 9th grade or until students obtain a RIT of 235-240 two consecutive times by the end of 8th gradeMCA IIIDRA Maze/ClozeFormative Classroom AssessmentsWriting Sample

Small/ Flexible Groups ( Multiple level text ,Explicit instruction, Strategic reading strategies) Additional vocabulary support Differentiation( Content / Process/ Product) Additional Word Work support

Intervention Levels 1 and 2“Proficiency Reading”

For students scoring at or below 50th percentile and/or who are reading one

to four levels below their current grade level and need support in

vocabulary and comprehension, fluency, and decoding

(at risk of not passing the GRAD)

Identify Essential Learnings Diagnostic: DRA (fall) MAP

(fall) SRI

(fall) TOSCRF WJR III

(word attack)

ProgressMonitor: DRA (Winter) MAP

(Winter) SRI (Quarterly) TOSCRF WJR III

(word attack)*On-going formative assessments through conferences and observational data

Summative: DRA (Spring) MAP

(Spring) MCA III

(Spring) SRI

(Quarterly) TOSCRF

Groups of 16-20;1 year course in addition to core English class Readers Theater *Other supplemental material Reading workshop model Read Naturally REWARDS Root work *Other supplemental material

Identify Essential Learnings Groups of 10-16;1 year course in addition to core English class Read 180 Readers Theater REWARDS Read Naturally Root work Comprehension strategy work *Other supplemental material

Intervention Level 3For students scoring at or below the 10th percentile and/or who show the most extreme deficits in many areas

of reading including phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

Identify Essential Learnings Groups of 1-5; 2-3 yr course in addition to / or co-taught English core classIntense direct instructionSeen daily Read 1807 Syllables (Reading Week Seminar)

Farmington Guide to Reading Intervention (6-12)

In Summary. . . . What we’ve learned:

• Continued work and professional development Tier I

Content Area Active Reading Strategies Gradual Release of Responsibility Moving up Bloom’s

Tier II Continuing to Develop the program

• Blending of Tier II and III Interplay of Mainstream and Special Education

• Moving beyond intervention and remediation

Contact Information Ben Kusch

• [email protected] Kristin Scherman

• [email protected] Kari Simonson

• [email protected] Sara Byers-Platt

• [email protected]

Farmington High School December 19, 2011. Ben Kusch, Principal Kristin Scherman, Secondary...

Documents

Transcript of Farmington High School December 19, 2011. Ben Kusch, Principal Kristin Scherman, Secondary...