Languages
Pages
Legal
Debbie Schroer & Erin Tellman
Title I Reading Teachers
Cole R-1 Elementary
Russellville, Missouri
Please take 3 post-it notes from the table
Write your name, school name, and email on 2 post-its
Leave the third note blank
MAP scores for Elementary Communication Arts put us into “School Improvement”
Bottom 100 of Missouri schools
OUT of school improvement
In the top 40 Missouri schools
Implemented a 4-Tier Response to Intervention (RTI) model◦ High-quality Tier I instruction for all students
◦ Tier II interventions for students beginning to struggle
◦ Tier III interventions for students falling far below expectations
◦ Tier IV interventions for students qualifying for special education services
We began the PLC process 4 years ago
Highly committed staff and administration
W. I. N. (What I Need) time scheduled for each grade-level
Staggered times to allow both Title I teachers to be available for each grade-level
30 minutes for grades K and 1
45 minutes for grades 2-5
K 1 2 3 4 5
8:00
8:15
8:10
Math
9:00
8:15
8:30
8:30
8:45
8:45
9:00
9:00
9:15
9:00
Math
9:50
9:15
9:30
Recess
9:30
9:45
Recess
9:45
10:00
9:45
W.I.N
10:159:45
Math
10:45
9:55
Specials
10:40
10:00
10:15
10:15
10:30
10:30
10:45
10:40
Lunch
11:0510:45
11:00
10:45
Lunch
11:1010:50
Lunch
11:1511:00
11:15
10:55
Lunch
11:2011:05
Lunch
11:3011:15
11:30
11:15
W.I.N
11:45
11:10
Lunch
11:35
11:30
11:45
11:30
Math
12:30
11:40
Recess
12:05
11:45
12:00
11:45
W.I.N.
12:30
12:00
12:15
12:15
12:30
12:30
12:45
12:30
W.I.N.
1:15
12:45
1:00
1:00
1:151:05
Specials
1:50
1:15
1:30
1:15
W.I.N.
2:00
1:30
1:45
Recess
1:45
2:00
2:00
2:15
Recess 2:00
Specials
2:45
2:00
W.I.N.
2:45
2:15
2:30
2:30
2:45
2:45
3:00
3:00
3:20
Key:Pink- MathBlue- Recess
–Specials/Plan
Grey – LunchGreen – W.I.N.
time
Grade-level or position/title
Prioritize◦Screening Tools Used
◦Analyzing Data & Determining Needs
◦ Intervention Strategy Ideas
Not all struggling readers have the same needs.
Effective interventions must be matched to student needs.
Not all screening tools are designed to identify individual needs.
Kindergarten◦Phonemic Awareness Assessment –Kindergarten (Adapted) from National Center on
Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh (1998) Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: New Standards. Found on-line at www.pps.k12.or.us/curriculum/literacy/.../assessments/k-phonemic.pdf
◦Alphabet Naming Assessment
First Grade◦ Sight Word Recognition – First 60 Fry Instant Word List originally taken from Dr. Fry's 1000 Instant Words: The Most Common Words for Teaching Reading, Writing, and Spelling. Edward Fry, Ph.D. Teacher Created Materials, Inc. 2000.
◦ Phonological Awareness Skills Test (PAST) from Sounds in Action: Phonological Awareness Activities and Assessments. Yvette Zgonc, Crystal Springs Books, 2000.
◦ Level C Fluency Passage (www.readinga-z.com – by subscription)
◦ Teacher Rating Scale
Second-Fifth Grades◦Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI)◦Teacher Rating Scale
Fourth-Fifth Grades◦Grade-level spelling list from Diagnosis and
Correction of Reading Problems, Darrell Morris, The Guilford Press, 2008.
◦MAP scores
Individually administered
Title I Reading Teachers
Used to determine what each struggling student needs
Kindergarten◦ Use data from the universal screening tools
First Grade◦ Use data from universal screening tools plus the Developmental Reading Assessment, 2nd Edition (DRA2), Pearson Learning Company, 2005.
Second Grade◦ 3-Minute Reading Assessments: Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension. Grades 1-4. Timothy V. Rasinski
and Nancy Padak, Scholastic Teaching Resources, 2005.
◦ Beginning Decoding Survey, 2009, Really Great
Reading Company, www.ReallyGreatReading.com
◦ Sight Word List
Third Grade◦ 3-Minute Reading Assessments: Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension. Grades 1-4. Timothy V. Rasinski and Nancy Padak, Scholastic Teaching Resources, 2005.
◦ Beginning Decoding Survey, 2009, Really Great Reading Company, www.ReallyGreatReading.com
◦Wilson Assessment of Decoding and Encoding (WADE, 1998, Barbara Wilson)
Fourth-Fifth Grades◦Beginning Decoding Survey & Advanced Decoding Survey 2009, Really
Great Reading Company, www.ReallyGreatReading.com
◦Grade-level Non-fiction Passage from Analytical Reading Inventory, MaryLynn
Woods and Alden J. Moe, 2011, Pearson Education, Inc.
Title I Teachers Score Screenings
RTI teams review and discuss◦Needs
◦Behavior
◦Teacher-Student relationship/personalities
◦Regular Classroom division
Primary Grades
Area of Concern Inter-mediate Grades
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Phonemic Awareness Screener
Stud
en
t A
Stud
en
t B
Stud
en
t D
Stud
en
t F
Stud
en
t H
Stud
en
t I
Stud
ent J
Stud
en
t M
Stud
en
t N
Stud
en
t Q
Stud
en
t R
Stud
en
t S
Kin
dergarten
A
verage
Rhyme 4 1 5 5 4 4 0 0 4 3 0 2
In Cons 0 5 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 1 0 2
Fi Cons 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
blend o/r 2 2 0 3 0 3 2 0 2 2 0 2
blend ph 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 14 5 9 7 13 2 0 11 6 0 7 12.3
% 32% 56% 20% 36% 28% 52% 8% 0% 44% 24% 0% 28% 49%
8
14
11
5
21
9
19
7
13
2
23 23
0
11
16
11
6
0
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
Phonemic Awareness Screener
Class B
September 2013
Rhyme
Initial Consonant
Total
CLASS AVERAGE
Students in red were selected for intervention. Student in greeen was marked for monitoring. Alphabet scores were also
considered, although not shown here.
Stud
en
t A
Stud
en
t B
Stud
en
t D
Stud
en
t F
Stud
en
t H
Stud
en
t I
Stud
en
t J
Stud
en
t M
Stud
en
t N
Stud
en
t Q
Stud
en
t R
Stud
en
t S
Kin
dergarten
A
verage
Rhyme 4 1 5 5 4 4 0 0 4 3 0 2
In Cons 0 5 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 1 0 2
Fi Cons 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
blend o/r 2 2 0 3 0 3 2 0 2 2 0 2
blend ph 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 14 5 9 7 13 2 0 11 6 0 7 12.3
% 32% 56% 20% 36% 28% 52% 8% 0% 44% 24% 0% 28% 49%
***Areas in red indicate area of concern
STUDENTSIGHT
WORDSPHONEMIC
AWARENESS STORYTEACHER
RECOMMENDATIONNEEDS INTERVENTION?
A 27% 47% 76% 1
B 8% 44% 7% 4
C 15% 79% 92% 1
D 20% 83% 78% 0
E 10% 32% 5% 4
F 22% 64% 80% 0
G 15% 78% 16% 0
H 8% 38% 11% 5
I 15% 78% 80% 3
J 15% 53% 24% 0
Sight Words Only -classroom
Sight Words Only -classroom
Sight Words Only -classroom
Sight Words Only -classroom
YES – loss over summer
YES – loss over summer
YES – watch for progress to dismiss
YES – all areas concern
YES – all areas concern
YES – all areas concern
STUDENTTEACHER FORM ACCURACY WCPM
FLUENCY-EXPRESSION COMPREHENSION
SIGHT WORDS
BEGINNNG DECODING SURVEY
#ERRORS DECODING
TYPE OF INTERVENTION NEEDED?
A 3 81% 26 6 5 83% 42 11
B 4 66% 21 6 4 55% 22 55
C 5 89% 42 7 4 55% 35 28
D 5 78% 14 4 2 58% 23 47
E 5 81% 22 4 3 75% 22 50
F 5 87% 20 6 2 50% 31 25
G new 100% 24 5 3 62% 26 35
H 3 91% 49 12 6 98% 39 18
***All of these students scored BR (0) on SRI at beginning of second grade so I did not include that data in chart.
***Red areas indicate area of concern.
Fluency
Phonics
Phonics
Phonics
Phonics
Phonics+Fluency
Phonics
Phonics+Fluency
STUDENTTEACHER FORM ACCURACY WCPM
FLUENCY-EXPRESSION
COMPREHENSION
SIGHT WORDS
BEGINNNG DECODING SURVEY
#ERRORS DECODING
H 3 91% 49 12 6 98% 39 18
C 5 89% 42 7 4 55% 35 28
D 5 78% 14 4 2 58% 23 47
TYPE OF INTERVENTION NEEDED?
Weak in decoding; Wilson--watch for dismissal
Weak in decoding; Wilson
All areas a concern; Wilson--Tier III (already identified in 1st grade)
Te
ac
he
r F
orm
Fa
ll S
RI L
ex
ile
Fa
ll S
RI %
tile
Sp
ellin
g %
MA
P 2
01
3
Po
ints
fro
m P
rofi
cie
nt
Be
gin
nin
g D
ec
od
ing
Su
rve
y
Ad
van
ced
Deco
din
g S
urv
ey
Rate
: W
CP
M
Ac
cu
rac
y
Co
mp
reh
en
sio
n
Expectations 0-2 600 50 50% 648 48/50 26/30 70+ 97% 75%
Student 1 New 529 28 17% 610 B -38 38 7 36 91% 56%
Student 2 4 468 22 33% 630 B -18 49 28 63 97% 44%
These students have similar comprehension scores on Universal Screenings, but do they need the same
Intervention strategies?
Te
ac
he
r F
orm
Fa
ll S
RI L
ex
ile
Fa
ll S
RI %
tile
Sp
ellin
g %
MA
P 2
01
3
Po
ints
fro
m P
rofi
cie
nt
Be
gin
nin
g D
ec
od
ing
Su
rve
y
Ad
van
ced
Deco
din
g S
urv
ey
Rate
: W
CP
M
Ac
cu
rac
y
Co
mp
reh
en
sio
n
Expectations 0-2 600 50 50% 648 48/50 26/30 70+ 97% 75%
Student 1 New 529 28 17% 610 B -38 38 7 36 91% 56%
Student 2 4 468 22 33% 630 B -18 49 28 63 97% 44%
Student 1 needs phonics intervention.
Student 2 needs comprehension & fluency intervention.
Florida Center for Reading Research center activities – fcrr.org
Teacher-created Interactive Whiteboard activities for blending onset/rime and phonemes
Center activities and file folder games
I-pad apps like ◦Reading Eggs “Tap the Cat”◦ABC Magic3
◦ABC Magic 6 Sound Beginnings
◦Hideout
◦Phonics Fun
◦Little Match-ups ABC Alphabet
Teacher-created letter name chants
Center activities and file folder games
Teacher-created Interactive Whiteboard activities
Flashcards and matching games
www.abcmouse.com games and activities
www.starfall.com games and activities
www.readingeggs.com (by subscription)
Ipad apps like ◦Alphabet Dots
◦ABC Order
◦PhotoTouch ABC
◦Eggy Alphabet
◦Endless ABC
◦Bubble School
◦Writing Wizard
“Wilson Reading System” and Wilson “Just Words” for systematic, sequential, multi-sensory phonics and phonemic awareness instruction (Barbara Wilson, Wilson Language Training Corporation, 2008) www.wilsonlanguage.com
www.readingeggs.com (by subscription)
www.starfall.com
iPad apps like◦ Tic Tac Toe Phonics
◦ Phonics Fun
◦ Little Speller Three Letter Words
Read Live by Read Naturally - online program by subscription
Repeated Readings/Timings Reader’s Theater Poetry Readings Echo and/or Choral Reading Ready-to-use Center Activities from Florida
Center for Reading Research website:www.fcrr.org
Ipad apps for sight words:Word WizardBrainscape
Nifty Thrifty 50 words (most common roots and affixes) Month-by-Month Phonics and Vocabulary, Karen L. Loman, Amanda B. Arens, Patricia Cunningham, Carson-Dellosa Publishing Co., 2007.
Explicit instruction during reading
Cloze Reading Strategy from Now I Get It! Teaching Struggling Readers to Make Sense of What They Read, Joan Lazar and Christine Vogel, Scholastic, 2010.
iPad Apps like◦ Endless ABC◦ Synonyms Pro
Infer – Scattered Clues Strategy from Now I Get It!, www.fcrr.org activities
Self-Monitor –Click or Clunk Strategy
Visualize – teacher-led sketching during read-aloud
Activate & Connect – teacher-directed with questions, think-aloud modeling
Summarize – “Somebody Wanted … But … So … Then” frame
Main Idea Activities
Teacher-created assessments, fluency passages, SRI and DRA scores
Reviewed regularly to make decisions about Tier placements and intervention strategies
Debbie Schroer
Erin Tellman
Cole R-1 Elementary
Russellville, Missouri